Re: My task from last week: Semantic free identifiers

Graham --  You wrote

*Who cares about readability of SPARQL queries? No-one is going to be
writing SPARQL queries. The tools should allow us to work at much higher
levels of abstraction than queries, and then the tool spits out the right
SPARQL query. The humans never see it. And those who do look at it will be
experts and so can sort out the issues themselves.*

+1 to that!                   --- Adrian

Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL
and RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements

Adrian Walker
Reengineering


On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Graham Matthews <
graham@orangedogconsulting.com> wrote:

> IMHO, if you're still coding the content of an information system by hand, then you're going to introduce errors. A database curator should never assign their own identifier - this is internal to the technology and the information system. If you're a programmer, you should query the resource (ontology) for the identifiers based on the labels.  Be more sophisticated. Do it right. Build useable APIs/UIs for people.
>
> Best,
>
> m.
>
> Looking up URIs by their labels is a recipe for serious problems since
> several URIs may have the same label (e.g. "in" as a label can apply to a
> lot of relations -- locatedIn, locatedOn, inside, some temporal relations,
> etc).
>
> If you look at URIs by label you are looking up semantics by it's syntax.
> We have been down that path before with other formalisms and it's proven
> itself to be generally a terrible idea (and not just in computer science).
>
> Finally I think this whole debate is back-to-front. People seem to be
> worried about making SPARQL queries more neutral. Who cares about
> readability of SPARQL queries? No-one is going to be writing SPARQL queries.
> The tools should allow us to work at much higher levels of abstraction than
> queries, and then the tool spits out the write SPARQL query. The humans
> never see it. And those who do look at it will be experts and so can sort
> out the issues themselves.
>
> graham
>