- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 08:11:51 -0400
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
- Message-ID: <554B5687.8080309@openlinksw.com>
On 5/7/15 4:36 AM, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> Dear all
>
> This issue has been surfacing again and again lately, and I would like
> to support Martin. I've already pushed this viewpoint here and there,
> I understand the reaction of "orthodox" linked data supporters for
> whom "things must be identified by URIs", period. But to put in
> bluntly, in many cases, well-maintained codes for standardized
> identities (languages, countries, towns, units ...) are more
> sustainable ways to share identities than URIs, for the obvious
> reasons given by Martin (URIs are volatile) plus three other ones at
> least.
Hi Bernard,
>
> - Codes are not tied to any technical architecture, they can be used
> and exchanged across any information system, not only the Web
> (semantic or not). They allow to "weave beyond the Web" [1] any kind
> of data using them.
>
Yes, and that's because they have semantics that make them "codes".
> - Codes have minimal semantics (if any), they just carry shared
> identities, and that's great.
To function as a "code" don't they have to be objects of
inverse-functional relations? Otherwise, how can they function as a
"code" ?
If the claim above is true, shouldn't both humans and machines have the
ability to discern the nature of this kind of relation, so that either
can leverage its "code" function in regards to data integration and
reconciliation?
> Different data publishers can propose different representations,
> identified by different URIs, and sharing the same standard code. The
> sharing of a code via a common property/value pair is the best way to
> provide loose coupling between those entities without engaging into
> the neverending ontological and technical debate of knowing if those
> representations represent the same/similar/equivalent thing(s), and
> catastrophic chaining triggered by such hazardous equivalences.
Equivalence isn't the only relation semantic in play. Of course, some
will misuse this as we see re., all the "sameAs" relations incarnations
etc..
>
> Let me take just one example. Is not it safer to tie
> http://id.insee.fr/geo/commune/21231 to
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dijon by the common value of INSEE code
> "21231" (standardized by INSEE) than to rely on cascading sameAs
> leading to the stupid semantic black hole at
> http://sameas.org/html?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FDijon
> which is the patent proof of the failure of a dogmatic and positivist
> use of URIs.
>
> [1] http://bvatant.blogspot.fr/2015/04/weaving-beyond-web.html
The utility claim (or value proposition) of Linked Data URIs isn't about
identifier durability. It's all about the ability to lookup the meaning
of names that identify things, using the medium provided by the Web. For
example being able to look-up the meaning of a relation to see that its
inverse-functional.
Anyone equipped with a text editor and the ability to post content
e.g., via posts (Facebook, G+, LinkedIn, Twitter), text documents (using
Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive etc..), even in a mail exchange like
this can state:
{
## Enhancing the definition of the relation identified by
<http://dbpedia.org/ontology/inseeCode>
<http://dbpedia.org/ontology/inseeCode>
a owl:InverseFunctionalProperty ;
is schema:about of <> .
}
To conclude, the lookup utility of HTTP URIs as entity names, including
those that identify relations is a useful mechanism for building a Web
where relation semantics are discernible by both humans and machines. It
makes data integration and reconciliation tasks much easier to solve.
Kingsley
>
> 2015-05-07 0:31 GMT+02:00 martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>>:
>
> The problem is not the one time generation. The problems are as
> follows:
>
> 1. Copyright - Are you allowed to republish the code set as RDF?
> 2. Sustainability - Are you commited to keep the URIs
> dereferencable, or will some domain grabber take the domain name
> once the creator has completed his/her PhD and lost interest.
> 3. Updates - Will you keep the RDF version in sync whenever the
> standard changes?
>
> Unless there is a clear "yes" to all three questions, it is better
> to use the official codes than derived URIs.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> > On 06 May 2015, at 23:56, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com
> <mailto:wes.turner@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > How much time do you think it would take to generate RDF (and
> namespaced URIs) from the linked spreadsheet?
> >
> > Mappings to/from UN/CEFACT codes (as owl:sameAs mappings to
> strings) could certainly be useful.
> >
> > On May 6, 2015 4:31 PM, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>"
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>> wrote:
> > I think a validator should simply use the list of valid codes
> from the most recent UN/CEFACT document (available as MS Excel
> from http://www.unece.org/cefact/codesfortrade/codes_index.html).
> >
> > There might be unit of measurement ontologies out there that
> hold the UN/CEFACT Common Code string for a subset of all units as
> a literal value. But for validation, one should use the
> authoritative list from the Excel files (since they are updated
> from time to time).
> >
> > URIs are not better than strings for validation, because URIs
> are strings.
> >
> > Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> >
> > Martin Hepp
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > martin hepp
> > e-business & web science research group
> > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
> >
> > e-mail: martin.hepp@unibw.de <mailto:martin.hepp@unibw.de>
> > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4217>
> > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4620>
> > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
> > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> > skype: mfhepp
> > twitter: mfhepp
> >
> > Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> > =================================================================
> > * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 06 May 2015, at 20:34, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com
> <mailto:wes.turner@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > I notice that with QUDT there are SI conversion factors and
> complete URIs for each unit.
> > >
> > > Is there a schema for validation of "schema:QuantativeValues
> supports all UN/CEFACT Common Codes"?
> > >
> > > (A similar quandry as with MedicalCode; where URI namespaces
> (like icd10:) would be more helpful for terminological validation
> and disambiguation than plain string keys)
> > >
> > > On May 6, 2015 4:26 AM, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>"
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Wes,
> > > > sorry for a very late reply:
> > > >
> > > > Actually you could easily use schema:QuantitativeValue for
> both time and volume, with SEC as the unit code for t and LTR as
> the unit code for liters, and link both via schema:valueReference,
> or better, and owl:subProperty thereof.
> > > >
> > > > For the principle, see
> > > >
> > > >
> http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/Structured_values_and_value_references
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > schema:QuantativeValues supports all UN/CEFACT Common Codes
> for units, which should cover all you need:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/UN/CEFACT_Common_Codes
> > > >
> > > > (Mind the full list in the public Excel files, the page just
> highlights a small subset.)
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> > > >
> > > > Martin Hepp
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > martin hepp
> > > > e-business & web science research group
> > > > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
> > > >
> > > > e-mail: martin.hepp@unibw.de <mailto:martin.hepp@unibw.de>
> > > > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4217>
> > > > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4620>
> > > > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
> > > > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> > > > skype: mfhepp
> > > > twitter: mfhepp
> > > >
> > > > Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked
> Data!
> > > >
> =================================================================
> > > > * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 01 May 2015, at 13:45, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org
> <mailto:perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Wes,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 01/26/2014 07:20 AM, Wes Turner wrote:
> > > > >> Say I am trying to share a tabular dataset. [1] There's
> metadata for
> > > > >> the Dataset, and there's metadata for the particular
> columns (which
> > > > >> applies to the particular data items).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For example:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> t volume (liters)
> > > > >> -----------------
> > > > >> 1 1
> > > > >> 2 0.7
> > > > >> 3 0.5
> > > > >> 4 0.3
> > > > >> 5 0.1
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Questions
> > > > >> ===========
> > > > >> # Is there (a good) way to specify these units and
> quantities (in
> > > > >> addition to XSD datatypes)?
> > > > > You might like to check out
> > > > > * https://iotdb.org/pub/iot-unit.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Bernard Vatant
> *
> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
> Skype : bernard.vatant
> http://google.com/+BernardVatant
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca*****
> 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris*
> *
> www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com/>
> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2015 12:12:14 UTC