W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2015

Re: Sustainable Codes vs Volatile URIs Re: URIs / Ontology for Physical Units and Quantities

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 10:01:00 -0700
Message-ID: <1431190860.52504.YahooMailBasic@web122905.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@cantab.net>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
P.S. Pictures for the "tourists", um, I mean, Semantic Web Visualization Professionals ...

  (http://www.rustprivacy.org/no-bayes.pdf) or a tiny URL (http://tinyurl.com/no-bayes)

--Gannon
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 5/9/15, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: Sustainable Codes vs Volatile URIs Re: URIs / Ontology for  Physical  Units and Quantities
 To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "Mark Harrison" <mark.harrison@cantab.net>, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>
 Cc: "W3C Web Schemas Task Force" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
 Date: Saturday, May 9, 2015, 11:48 AM
 
 Yes Phil,
 
 I'd like you to host a DNS proxy resolver vocabulary for 4
 character text chunks, with Two and Three Letter
 Acronyms.  I'll use XSD Schema format.  The tables
 can not be made with SPARQL but they can with SQL and used
 forevermore *by* SPARQL to resolve URN's to URI's.
 
 Decimal Currency is a quantized metric system as Alan Turing
 pointed out ("satisfactory numbers").  So is DNS.
 
 --Gannon 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Thu, 5/7/15, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
 
  Subject: Re: Sustainable Codes vs Volatile URIs Re: URIs /
 Ontology for  Physical  Units and Quantities
  To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>,
 "Mark Harrison" <mark.harrison@cantab.net>
  Cc: "W3C Web Schemas Task Force" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
  Date: Thursday, May 7, 2015, 6:00 AM
  
  Let me begin by taking
  issue with the that URIs are volatile.
  
  Some are, yes.
  
  Some are not.
  
  http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns,
  for example, is not volatile.
  
  If you set up a Web site/service with the
  specific aim of it being 
  persistent, it
  will be. Only the intention behind them makes a 
  difference between temp.com and purl.org, not
  the architecture.
  
  W3C would
  love to host a system where vocabularies could be
 developed
  
  GitHub-style, complete with guarantees of
  persistence. It's only money 
  that stops
  us doing it. You want to build that on w3.org? Please let
 me
  
  know - and we can talk about and publish
  clear statements about what 
  happens when
  the money runs out and we host a static copy.
  
  Meanwhile, anyone can use our
  Community group system now and develop and 
  maintain vocabularies for which you can have a
  w3.org/ns namespace if 
  desired.
  
  And if you have a vocabulary
  you'd like us to host, again, please talk 
  to me.
  
  A few
  extra comments inline below.
  
  On 07/05/2015 11:17, Bernard Vatant wrote:
  > Hi Mark
  >
  > 2015-05-07 11:10 GMT+02:00 Mark Harrison
  <mark.harrison@cantab.net>:
  >
  >> Dear Bernard,
  >>
  >> Just to
  respond to your example, that is probably an acceptable
  approach
  >> provided that both
  resources sharing that string code do so via a
  >> well-defined property that has an
  inverse-functional relationship (i.e.
  >> only one Subject is allowed to have
  that Value), much like a social
  >>
  security number.
  >
  >
  > Yes and no :)
  > Yes for the use of a shared property in a
  shared stable vocabulary, or even
  >
  equivalent properties in separate vocabularies.
  > But definitely no for the
  inverse-functional relationship. The weak
  > semantics of a code implies that it does
  not commit to any ontological
  >
  assumption of whatever the code denotes, and in particular
  if it denotes a
  > single entity. In the
  case of a city code, one can consider the city as a
  > geographical entity, a surface delimited
  by a polygon, a minimal and
  > maximal
  altitude etc, and another as a populated place with a
  population at
  > date X, and yet another
  one as an administrative subdivision with its
  > parent territory etc. Those three
  representations will have different URIs
  > and different descriptions,
  
  Yes, and there might be
  significant differences in any of them over 
  time. City names change, boundaries change and
  so on. I spent time 
  recently with someone
  who had lived in 5 different countries, even 
  though he'd lived in the same place all his
  life (Belgrade).
  
  
    and infering they are the same based on
  an
  > inverse functional property is
  likely to entail inconsistent
  >
  representations.
  
  True.
  
  
  > The
  bottom line of this, and I'm aware to be in vehement
  disagreement with
  > many people around
  here, is that a URI does not identify an entity, but a
  > representation.
  
  Please let's not get into HR14.
  
    And a shared code is just a
  shared key, agnostic on the
  > ontological
  status of its referent.
  
  So
  is a URI. It's a dumb string that has the property that
  you can look 
  it up and find out what it
  identifies, unlike codes that have no such 
  functionality.
  
  >
  >
  >> In that case, it's reasonable to
  infer that the two resources are the
  >> same.
  >
  >
  > Which is leading you
  dangerously closer to a semantic black hole horizon.
  >
  >
  >> However, there are several 5-character
  codes in circulation, whether CAGE
  >>
  / NCAGE codes, US 5-digit zip codes or INSEE codes - so
  it's essential to
  >> unambiguously
  specify explicitly what the code represents
  
  I see you have a list of codes
  a bit like mine, we should align our 
  systems! (by which I mean, you should deleted
  yours and use mine).
  
  Ain't going to happen.
  
  That'll do for now
  
  Phil.
  
  >
  >
  > This is simply an
  impossible task. You share a code, but views on what this
  > code denotes, implemented as different
  URIs, can be different. And that
  > should
  not be an issue.
  > If you ask me, the
  whole semantic enterprise will fail as long as this
  > point has not been widely understood. I
  seem to be very abrupt here, but
  > this
  is my conclusion after about 15 years munching on those
  issues, in
  > theory and in practice
  ...
  >
  >
  >> and whether the relationship is
  inverse functional.  If that is not
  >> specified in a machine-interpretable
  manner, we all lose efficiency because
  >> each responsible developer must verify
  that relationship manually before
  >>
  making that assumption.
  >>
  >> The major downside of bare code
  strings vs URIs is that it's not
  >> immediately obvious where to go to
  find information - you can't simply make
  >> a web request and reasonably hope to
  find a definition or other
  >>
  relationships.  Of course, as Martin points out, we need
 a
  stable
  >> foundation, which for Linked
  Data means stable URIs and a commitment to
  >> maintain resources and web
  vocabularies for the common good, within a
  >> framework that does not allow them to
  collapse or wither if one committed
  >>
  individual leaves or is run over by a bus.
  >>
  >> Best
  wishes,
  >>
  >> -
  Mark
  >>
  >>
  >> On 7 May 2015, at 09:36, Bernard
  Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
  >> 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.
  >>>
  >>> -
  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.
  >>>
  >>> -
  Codes have minimal semantics (if any), they just carry
  shared
  >> identities, and that's
  great. 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.
  >>>
  >>> 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
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> 2015-05-07 0:31 GMT+02:00 martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
  <
  >> 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>
  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"
  <
  >> 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
  >>>>
  phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
  >>>> fax: 
     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
  >>>> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/
  (group%2
Received on Saturday, 9 May 2015 17:01:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:40 UTC