Re: Best Practice for Renaming OWL Vocabulary Elements

On 5/18/11 7:08 PM, glenn mcdonald wrote:
>
>     it's not feasible, nor enforceable, nor desirable to develop
>     ontologies entirely with random URIs as identifiers.
>
>
> Just to be clear, I said "pure identifiers", not "random URIs". I like 
> integers as local IDs. Add a base URI and you've got perfectly good 
> URIs for everything. Or a default prefix, if extra colons make you 
> feel more comfortable.
>
> We're talking about practice, so "enforceable" is not the issue here, 
> and "desirable" is the question we're considering. It's certainly 
> feasible, though: countless data-systems throughout technological 
> history have used pure identifiers for machine purposes and 
> human-readable names for human purposes. It's not feasible without 
> tool support, I'll give you that. But neither are spreadsheets. I see 
> no reason to stipulate, in 2011, that the world-wide database should 
> be written in text editors.

Great point re. world-wide dbms and text editors as prime editing tool!! 
This certainly exposes another aspect of the "elephant in the room" 
problem.

Making it easy to scribble data on digital magic paper as a convenient 
conduit to the global linked data space (that is the Web) is great, but 
said quest is nothing more than a pattern amongst many. In a sense, the 
one-size fits all issue is now finding its way into the Linked Data 
meme, courtesy of fissure points in the overall narrative.


-- 

Regards,

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