Re: Disambiguating Things

Yeap... that'd probably be it.  :)

But I build or create my "unique" or "inverse functional property"
https://www.w3.org/wiki/InverseFunctionalProperty from a whole bunch of
properties that I smush together and run an algorithm on.

I'll open the issue, but it will be generic to say "Add support for inverse
functional like in RDF/RDFS/OWL" and I might not be able to contribute to
much to the discussion much, but I will try.  I suspect that others might
eventually have this similar need in the realm of unique identifiers but
don't publicize about it or worry about publishing them since they are
mostly internally used.

-Thad

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:59 AM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> On 3 July 2017 at 17:12, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No more examples.
>>
>> LOL, Dan... My Rabbit hole is not that deep.  This is about comparing
>> lots of property values...but holding all of them as a Bitmap that is then
>> checksum-ed and stored as a non-unique identifier.
>>
>> Its simply that I amalgamate lots of property values from my virtual IoT
>> Things and create a long-lived identifier from those (virtual IoT Things
>> are spun up dynamically and output values of measurements over their
>> lifespan) and so the actual identifier is not held for very long, in fact,
>> I don't store it after everything is amalgamated...only a few hours)...but
>> my Things Category type and all their properties and their values are
>> stored on a DB.  The need is to compare those virtual IoT Things for weeks,
>> months, years.  Imagine a VM... but instead... its IoT VM (skunkworks).
>>
>> These kind of scenarios are even present now in Industrial domains.
>> For now, most folks are just pitching over the Schema.org fence with
>> "text"... but knowing a bit more about textual identifiers themselves, like
>> how they are formed, the algorithm used, and other metadata about
>> identifiers, etc.. is a present need.  We currently know when we have
>> identical virtual IoT Things because we can compare those checksums or
>> fingerprints.
>>
>> Probably best if I changed the subject of the email thread to
>> "Disambiguating 1000's of properties for virtual IoT Things"
>>
>
> Ah, ok I think I'm getting the picture now. Probably-maybe. It might be
> related to the habit in RDF/RDFS/OWL of saying that some properties are
> "inverse functional"; for any particular value of the property there's at
> most one thing in the world that can have that property/value combination.
> If that's about it, could you file a github issue?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>> -Thad
>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 10:50 AM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I suspect you'll find this gets complex quite quickly as you run into
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records
>>> -like distinctions.
>>>
>>> Back in the FOAF project we experimented with a sha1sum property. It
>>> turns out two entirely different entities (on one conceptualization) can
>>> have the same character/byte content and hence hash.
>>>
>>> e.g. in a unix-y environment:
>>>
>>> touch hello_world.txt
>>>
>>> shasum hello_world.txt
>>>
>>>
>>> ... gives something like -rw-rw-r-- 1 ubuntu ubuntu 0 Jul  3 15:21
>>> hello_world.txt
>>>
>>> shasum hello_world.txt
>>>
>>> da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709  hello_world.txt
>>>
>>> ... on a different machine you'll have a different datestamp and
>>> username but the same empty file. Various parts of schema.org have some
>>> approach to describing these kinds of distinction for CreativeWorks (e.g.
>>> "workExample"; or "encoding" on MediaObject; or "distribution" vs
>>> "contentUrl" on Dataset -> DataDownload, ...). And the further you get from
>>> bytes, the more tenuous the link back to checksum maths; c.f.
>>> dnaChecksum...).
>>>
>>> I can see value in having enough clarity around MediaObject and nearby
>>> that we can talk about checksums more cleanly, but I'm not sure how far
>>> that'll get us. It would be interesting for datasets and software
>>> applications and so on to have this capability, so that you can look up the
>>> right metadata to go with a concrete download / media file. Do you have
>>> some more examples we can work through?
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> On 3 July 2017 at 16:32, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I now have the need to disambiguate between Things at a deeper level
>>>> than just property comparisons.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to see the use or way of telling my apps that a checksum is
>>>> the disambiguatingDescription or identifier property on my Things.
>>>>
>>>> Currently, we have no Type of "Checksum" under Intangible.  That might
>>>> be thoughtful in the future.
>>>>
>>>> But we do have PropertyValue available, but it loses the
>>>>
>>>> This need arouse from the recent introduction of "checksum" property in
>>>> Wikidata as well...hence my Apps can take advantage of that now but not
>>>> without Schema.org uplifts, since my Apps depend on valid properties in
>>>> Schema.org... (insert skunkworks stuff here)
>>>>
>>>> I guess this is an alternative way to perform what I am needing
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>>   "@context": "http://schema.org/",
>>>>   "@type": "Thing",
>>>>   "name": "Some IoT Thing",
>>>>   "url": "http://www.example.com/Some+IoT+Thing",
>>>>   "identifier": {
>>>>     "@type": "PropertyValue",
>>>>     "alternateName":"checksum",
>>>>     "additionalType":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q218341",
>>>>     "value": "8044d756b7f00b695ab8dce07dce43e5",
>>>>     "unitCode":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185235"
>>>>     }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts or ideas or any;thing that I am missing ?
>>>>
>>>> If the above is actually a really good example, then we should probably
>>>> add it as an 3rd example on http://schema.org/identifier  ?
>>>>
>>>> -Thad
>>>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>