Re: Best Practice for Renaming OWL Vocabulary Elements

On 5/18/11 4:26 PM, Marco Neumann wrote:
> Glenn,
>
> it's not feasible, nor enforceable, nor desirable to develop 
> ontologies entirely with random URIs as identifiers.

It really depends on the system that generates and publishes Linked Data 
Objects endowed with de-referencable URIs. This isn't a new reality, 
systems have worked this way for eons. This is why I continue to state: 
a broken narrative is leading us down the path of carving out a 'new 
island' from an established continent of computer science.

> 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. 
The Name of an Entity and the Address of its Representation are 
distinct. The Name/Address ambiguity matter is universal to all realms 
when Named Entities are associated with actual Representations.

> 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.

No. Please digest my comments above.


Kingsley
>
> Marco
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:55 PM, glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com 
> <mailto: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/ <http://www..lotico.com/evt/stc2011/>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen