Re: strange identifiers in

Hello Peter

I think you are rightly pointing to the implicit initial (and naive)
assumption of, which is that the whole world can be represented
under a single flat namespace at arbitrary level of granularity, with
natural language words as identifiers. Obviously, this does not scale and
hits quickly the wall of polysemy, as the Abdomen example perfectly
illustrates, and we are bound to have more of the same with the schema
growth (which is, remind you, potentially unbound, as evasive answers to
questions on limit of this growth have shown some months).
Keeping a single flat namespace needs CamelCase constructions, such as, and the Abdomen example
could be disambiguated the same way e.g.,, leaving room to further etc.
This is an alternative to different namespaces such as your proposition,
but this solution seems proposed for extensions only.

Whatever the choice, I agree that it should
1. Avoid restricted definitions of potentially polysemic terms
2. Be based on a clear policy for namespace hierarchy of CamelCasing (so to

That said, and knowing enough of you to figure how you feel when looking
into them, other problems you point at (lack of documentation, semantic
glitches etc) will always be present in this scruffy-work-in-progress
called "Web semantics" (read : fuzzy, plural, inconsistent etc). I'm sure
you will ever ever fight it with all your will and strength given where you
come from, but I'm afraid this battle has been lost for quite a while now.
As Pat Hayes told me a while ago "My ivory tower has been seriously shaken
those days, waters of real world are slowly rising around us." Time to
learn swimming in troubled waters ...

Best regards

2013/11/7 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <>

> Hmm.
> Aaron might be able to answer why was chosen as
> the identifier for a medical physical examination of the abdomen.
> However, my question is really about how the identifiers in schema.orgare supposed to be formed.  Right now, it appears that there is little or
> no guidance beyond camelcase with types and enumerated values starting with
> a capital letter and properties not.
> Different parts of appear to be using different conventions
> (e.g., under Actions vs under MedicalEntity).   Some parts of schema.orgappear to be using several different conventions (e.g., CollectionPage vs
> ImageGallery under CreativeWork).
> I feel that the lack of guidance will only lead to confusion on the part
> of content generators, particularly when identifiers that do not match the
> intended meaning of their item are chosen (e.g., Abdomen).
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> On 11/07/2013 07:22 AM, Guha wrote:
>> Peter,
>>  Thank you for the feedback. Adding Aaron Brown, who worked on the
>> medical vocabulary to the thread.
>> Guha
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
>> <>> wrote:
>>     Well, my immediate goal here is to understand a part of
>>     <>.   Without such understanding any suggestions I
>> make
>>     aren't going to be particularly worthwhile.
>>     Consider, for example, a suggestion that the way to proceed here is to
>>     use identifiers like
>>      Is this a reasonable identifier to use in <
>>     instead of Abdomen?  I don't know.   Is this even an acceptable
>>     identifier to use in <> at all?  I don't
>>     know that either.  (Well, it does appear that this might be an
>>     acceptable identifier because it sort of fits the extension mechanism
>>     described in but it doesn't fit
>>     precisely.)
>>     So I asked a question, and backed it up with an example that I think
>>     shows that an answer is needed.
>>     Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>     On 11/06/2013 08:51 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
>>         On Nov 6, 2013 10:36 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider"
>>         < <>
>>         < <>>>
>> wrote:
>>         >
>>         > Are there any guidelines for the construction of identifiers in
>> <> <>?
>>         >
>>         > The reason that I ask is that there are some rather strange
>>         identifers, or at least some rather strange uses of identifiers.
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > Consider, for example, the identifier Abdomen
>>         (  One might think that this refers
>> to a
>>         part of the bodies of some animals.   However, Abdomen is instead
>> an
>>         instance of PhysicalExam, along with Appearance,
>> CardiovascularExam,
>>         Eye, Neuro, and VitalSign.
>>         >
>>         > It seems to me that this is very bad design, particularly if
>> <> <> identifiers
>> are
>>         supposed to be used by people who might not have a background in
>> the
>>         representation of knowledge.
>>         If your goal is to help improve <>
>>         <>, constructive criticism would be much better
>>         than just a stream of criticism. As one of my colleagues was fond
>> of
>>         saying, "You found the problem, so you get to solve the problem".
>>         So please lend your intellect towards helping solve the problem.
>>         Given a vocabulary with high rates of adoption, and the
>> realization
>>         that some less than optimal design decisions have been made, what
>>         action can you take or recommend to address these problems?


*Bernard Vatant*
Vocabularies & Data Engineering
Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
Skype : bernard.vatant
3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <>

Received on Thursday, 7 November 2013 18:41:36 UTC