Re: Best Practice for Renaming OWL Vocabulary Elements

@prefix ro: <http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/ro.owl#> .
@prefix obo: <http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/> .

obo:IAO_0000104 rdf:type owl:Class ;
               rdfs:subClassOf
              [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
                                  owl:onProperty ro:has_part ;
                                  owl:someValuesFrom obo:IAO_0000005
              ] .

If you can't figure out what this means, ask your favorite LOD browser
for help, or build a better one.

-Alan

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 6:49 PM, alexpi@gmail.com <alexpi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> za ssw m
> Sent from my LG phone
>
> Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> 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/

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 23:27:40 UTC