- From: Melanie Courtot <mcourtot@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:20:29 -0700
- To: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
- Cc: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>, glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com>, Ryan Kohl <ryanckohl@gmail.com>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Marco, all, We have been using numerical identifiers in OBI, the Ontology for Biomedical Investigations, and formalized this via the policy Alan sent out earlier (see http://www.obofoundry.org/id-policy.shtml) The OWL file is available at http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/obi.owl. You will see that all entities have a numerical URI (individuals, classes, properties...). Cheers, Melanie On 18-May-11, at 1:50 PM, Marco Neumann wrote: > Michael, > > indeed I did not not read Alan's email. I assume he refers to A-Box > identifiers only. > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Michael F Uschold > <uschold@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com > > wrote: > Glenn, > > it's not feasible, nor enforceable, nor desirable to develop > ontologies entirely with random URIs as identifiers. > > Perhaps you have not seen Alan Ruttenberg's email on this topic. I > think they do exactly this. It was no free lunch, they had a lot of > work to do to make this doable -- in large part because as Glenn > says, the duality of: "machines need to think in ids and people need > to think in names" is not well supported by tools or methodology. > > I am of the opinion that local names should indeed be designed with > meaningful names in mind last but not least to improve the ontology > engineering process. Though that said there might be exceptions such > as NLP and ML where automatic tagging and ontology creation with > random URIs can useful, but that's a special use case. > > Marco > > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:55 PM, glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com> > wrote: > I agree wholeheartedly that URIs should be pure identifiers, with no > embedded semantics or assumptions of readability. And I agree with > Kingsley that there's an elephant in the room. I might even agree > with Kingsley about what the elephant is. > > But to say it from my point of view: machines need to think in ids, > people need to think in names. The RDF/SPARQL "stack", such as it > is, has not internalized the implications of this duality, and thus > isn't really prepared to support both audiences properly. Almost all > the canonical examples of RDF and SPARQL avoid this issue by using > toy use-cases with semi-human-readable URIs, and/or with literals > where there ought to be nodes. If you try to do a non-trivial > dataset the right way, you'll immediately find that writing the RDF > or the SPARQL by hand is basically intractable. If you try to > produce an human-intelligible user-interface to such data, you'll > find yourself clinging to rdfs:label for dear life, and then > falling, falling, falling... > > In fact, there's almost nothing more telling than the fact that > rdfs:label is rdfS! This is in some ways the most fundamental aspect > of human/computer data-interaction, and RDF itself has essentially > nothing to say about it. > > > > -- > Marco Neumann > KONA > > Make sure to join us at the Semantic Technology Conference 2011 in > San Francisco and save 15% with the coupon code STMN > http://www..lotico.com/evt/stc2011/ > > > > -- > Michael Uschold, PhD > Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts > LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu > Skype, Twitter: UscholdM > > > > > -- > Marco Neumann > KONA > > Make sure to join us at the Semantic Technology Conference 2011 in > San Francisco and save 15% with the coupon code STMN > http://www.lotico.com/evt/stc2011/ --- Mélanie Courtot MSFHR/PCIRN trainee, TFL- BCCRC 675 West 10th Avenue Vancouver, BC V5Z 1L3, Canada
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 21:21:50 UTC