Re: Best Practice for Renaming OWL Vocabulary Elements

Michael,

indeed I did not not read Alan's email. I assume he refers to A-Box
identifiers only.

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Glenn,
>>
>> it's not feasible, nor enforceable, nor desirable to develop ontologies
>> entirely with random URIs as identifiers.
>
>
> *Perhaps you have not seen Alan Ruttenberg's email on this topic. I think
> they do exactly this.  It was no free lunch, they had a lot of work to do to
> make this doable -- in large part because as Glenn says, the duality of:
> "machines need to think in ids and people need to think in names" is not
> well supported by tools or methodology.*
>
>
>> I am of the opinion that local names should indeed be designed with
>> meaningful names in mind last but not least to improve the ontology
>> engineering process. Though that said there might be exceptions such as NLP
>> and ML where automatic tagging and ontology creation with random URIs can
>> useful, but that's a special use case.
>>
>> Marco
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:55 PM, glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com> 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. 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Marco Neumann
>> KONA
>>
>> Make sure to join us at the Semantic Technology Conference 2011 in San
>> Francisco and save 15% with the coupon code STMN
>> http://www.lotico.com/evt/stc2011/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Uschold, PhD
>    Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
>    LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
>    Skype, Twitter: UscholdM
>
>


-- 
Marco Neumann
KONA

Make sure to join us at the Semantic Technology Conference 2011 in San
Francisco and save 15% with the coupon code STMN
http://www.lotico.com/evt/stc2011/