Re: Best Practice for Renaming OWL Vocabulary Elements

see below.,

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:55 PM, glenn mcdonald <> wrote:

> I agree wholeheartedly that URIs should be pure identifiers, with no
> embedded semantics or assumptions of readability. And I agree with Kingsley
> that there's an elephant in the room. I might even agree with Kingsley about
> what the elephant is.
> But to say it from my point of view: machines need to think in ids, people
> need to think in names. The RDF/SPARQL "stack", such as it is, has not
> internalized the implications of this duality, and thus isn't really
> prepared to support both audiences properly.

*Very well put, Glenn! *

> Almost all the canonical examples of RDF and SPARQL avoid this issue by
> using toy use-cases with semi-human-readable URIs, and/or with literals
> where there ought to be nodes. If you try to do a non-trivial dataset the
> right way, you'll immediately find that writing the RDF or the SPARQL by
> hand is basically intractable. If you try to produce an human-intelligible
> user-interface to such data, you'll find yourself clinging to rdfs:label for
> dear life, and then falling, falling, falling...
> In fact, there's almost nothing more telling than the fact that rdfs:label
> is rdfS! This is in some ways the most fundamental aspect of human/computer
> data-interaction, and RDF itself has essentially nothing to say about it.

Michael Uschold, PhD
   Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
   Skype, Twitter: UscholdM

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 20:17:19 UTC