- From: <alexpi@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:49:17 -0700
- To: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>, Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>
- Cc: glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com>, Ryan Kohl <ryanckohl@gmail.com>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>, " public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
za ssw m Sent from my LG phone Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> wrote: >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/
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 22:52:38 UTC