Re: Property "geographic identifier" in LOCN

FWIW

=====================================================
> For instance, I would be very surprised if the US government would give
> up their own schema and use FAOF to annotate Persons.

>This is out of scope of this discussion.

Any "governance" body, the EUC included is going to issue short term longitudinal (time) forecasts. This is not a data format problem Authorities can avoid. Of necessity, forecasts are computed with Fourier methods (time/frequency transforms).
Classic differential equations are: forecast(i) = X (zero) + X (i,time)
Semantics is: forecast(i) = (X (zero)/2) + X (i,time) + (X (zero)/2)
It is always possible mechanically add two halves of X (zero), but a Turing Machine is based on the classic (differential equation) forecast model.
The Phil Archer criterion is incomplete for People, complete for Things.
=====================================================
[#] Quoting Phil, "Indefinitely meaning some time between the point beyond which no one cares because technology has moved on and the heat death of the universe."
=====================================================
"Indefinitely meaning the range from before anyone has a clue they know anything  interesting and share it past the point beyond which no one cares because technology has moved on and the heat death of the universe.".  There Phil, fixed it for you.
The diffeq time line is: heat birth*|... initial stuff ... |... more stuff ...|no care|heat death*
The semantic time line is: heat birth*|no clue|... "mean" stuff ...|no care|heat death*

The question is: Is your "mean" stuff also average data or is it just being mean.
Einstein did not "speak truth" to Power, he bullied helpless photons. 

The calculation details are here:
http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/estandproj.php

 --Gannon

* Unfortunately, no FB Pages or Tweet records are available.  The Ultra-Violet Catastrophe never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 1/10/14, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: Property "geographic identifier" in LOCN
 To: "Raphaël Troncy" <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, "Sven Schade" <sven.schade@jrc.ec.europa.eu>, public-locadd@w3.org
 Cc: "'Pascal Hitzler'" <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>
 Date: Friday, January 10, 2014, 8:18 PM
 
 >> To come back to the person
 example you made. If I am not mistaken Prov-O
 >> defined their own prov:Person instead of using FOAF
 and my feeling is
 >> that they did this for most (or all?) of their
 work. I am happy to check
 >> this, if required.
 
 Just checked this: they seem to do both, e.g., there is a
 prov:Person class.
 
 
 On 01/10/2014 06:12 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
 > Hi Raphael,
 >
 >>> You have to define what do you mean by
 "import". And you should not
 >>> worry about those unintended logical
 consequences or please, provide me
 >>> with concrete examples of "unintended logical
 consequences" following
 >>> the re-use of terms from the top 10 LOD
 vocabularies (generally small,
 >>> with few axioms, but largely re-used) to back
 up this "fear".
 >
 > The geo:lat/long is just one example (see the other
 email) and it has
 > some very clear unintended consequence. There is of
 course also the
 > whole sameAs nightmare but we should probably try to
 ignore this for
 > now. I also already mentioned the case where buildings
 become persons
 > due to the usage of FOAF for building names. You can
 also check
 > Factforge for funny examples such as India being
 classified as a city to
 > due problems with domains and ranges, and so forth.
 >
 >>>> For instance, I would be very surprised if
 the US government would give
 >>>> up their own schema and use FAOF to
 annotate Persons.
 >>>
 >>> This is out of scope of this discussion.
 >
 > To come back to the person example you made. If I am
 not mistaken Prov-O
 > defined their own prov:Person instead of using FOAF and
 my feeling is
 > that they did this for most (or all?) of their work. I
 am happy to check
 > this, if required.
 >
 >>> Let's be pragmatic ...
 >
 > Yes, I absolutely agree but frankly speaking that was
 my starting point.
 > What we are seeing right now is that the Linked Data
 cloud is falling
 > apart. IMHO, one of the reasons is that we need to
 approach it a bit
 > more scientifically. I guess we all known about the
 dynamics in the SW
 > community that started the LD also as a reaction to
 over-engineering
 > things but now we are running into the opposite
 problem, namely just
 > hacking things together and this really makes me a bit
 nervous.
 >
 >> Let's go back to the original problem of this
 >>> thread: geographical identifier.
 >
 > I agree and please do not read my email as a criticism,
 attack, or
 > whatever but as a discussion starter of what we really
 want to develop
 > and how.
 >
 > Best,
 > Krzysztof
 >
 >
 > On 01/10/2014 10:44 AM, Raphaël Troncy wrote:
 >> Hello Krzysztof,
 >>
 >>> maybe we can ask the question the other way
 around: Why would you prefer
 >>> to reuse single relation and class names from
 different sources?
 >>
 >> First, as I have already stated (I hope clearly) in
 other emails, I have
 >> no strong opinions for always choosing one way
 (re-use terms) or the
 >> other (create new terms, mint new URIs, and add
 axioms). I actually
 >> strongly believe that both are necessary depending
 on the use case and
 >> that there is (arguably) a large blurred zone that
 we are now
 >> discussing. This is because some have expressed
 opinions that we should
 >> nearly _always_ do one way that I'm reacting.
 >>
 >> Second, I'm all for fighting against this obesity
 of creating
 >> systematically new classes and properties when this
 is not necessary.
 >> Not all triple stores / knowledge bases are
 saturated with possible
 >> inferences based on provided axioms. If you don't
 provide axioms then
 >> you rely on ontology matching tools to find
 correspondences while this
 >> conceptual work might have already been made by the
 person who provided
 >> the vocab. Maintaining axioms can have costs, in
 particular when terms
 >> usage evolve. Etc. So yes, I'm in favor or re-using
 terms rather than
 >> redefining when clearly, one wants to express the
 same thing.
 >>
 >>> This will force you to import many
 vocabularies/ontologies which will
 >>> create unintended logical consequences.
 >>
 >> You have to define what do you mean by "import".
 And you should not
 >> worry about those unintended logical consequences
 or please, provide me
 >> with concrete examples of "unintended logical
 consequences" following
 >> the re-use of terms from the top 10 LOD
 vocabularies (generally small,
 >> with few axioms, but largely re-used) to back up
 this "fear".
 >>
 >>> Additionally, you really do not
 >>> know whether those relations and classes are
 really the same.
 >>
 >> Let's be pragmatic ... we are not talking about
 re-using terms from a
 >> vocabulary made by a PhD student on a table, but
 from widely used
 >> vocabularies, which have been published following
 good practices, with
 >> usage notes, for which the maintainer and the
 community are known and
 >> can provide vast amount of experience.
 >>
 >>> Sven is not saying you should redo everything
 from scratch (e.g., your
 >>> own GeoSPARQL) but making a standard that
 imports single relations and
 >>> classes from multiple sources and hoping that
 they somehow stick
 >>> together seems odd to me.
 >>
 >> No. This discussion starts with the simple problem
 of finding an
 >> adequate property for representing a geographic
 identifier and the
 >> problem of re-using an existing property or
 creating a new one. Full
 >> stop.
 >>
 >>> For instance, I would be very surprised if the
 US government would give
 >>> up their own schema and use FAOF to annotate
 Persons.
 >>
 >> This is out of scope of this discussion.
 >>
 >>> Given Svens position at JRC, I guess this is
 his daily business. From my
 >>> perspective. We are currently working with the
 biggest existing GIS
 >>> company and they do not like the idea of using
 other ontologies that
 >>> they cannot control. Another example is
 schema.org.
 >>
 >> Just to make sure I understand: the argument is
 taste ('Like') or
 >> keeping control, right? Do those guys plan to
 expose their vocabulary?
 >> Do they expect other people to re-use their
 vocabulary?
 >>
 >>> Again, Pascal's, Sven's and my arguments are
 not to redo everything from
 >>> scratch but to have a precise and locally
 meaningful vocabulary and then
 >>> link out instead of just having a collection of
 pointers to other
 >>> namespaces.
 >>
 >> Nobody is saying this. Let's go back to the
 original problem of this
 >> thread: geographical identifier.
 >> Best regards.
 >>
 >>    Raphaël
 >>
 >
 >
 
 
 -- 
 Krzysztof Janowicz
 
 Geography Department, University of California, Santa
 Barbara
 5806 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
 
 Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
 Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
 Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net

Received on Saturday, 11 January 2014 16:14:57 UTC