- From: Thomas Passin <tpassin@tompassin.net>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:19:26 -0500
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Everybody who is interested in representing address should read at least this - https://www.mjt.me.uk/posts/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-addresses/ TomP On 12/4/2018 5:22 PM, Anthony Moretti wrote: > You've got to admit that this conversation about addresses has been > valuable though, blank nodes were the original topic of the thread after > all. A lot of developers before Hugh have tried to do simple address > matching, myself being one when I was trying to create a food delivery > startup. It's been good to talk this through in the context of RDF, I > appreciate everybody's comments. > > Anthony > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:31 PM Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org > <mailto:danbri@danbri.org>> wrote: > > > ("Details like URIs or bNodes seem to me rather down in the noise.") > > Thanks, Dave. This chimes with a lot of our experience at Google > using Schema.org data (roughly RDF triples) from the Web, fwiw. > > Dan > > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, 03:30 Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com > <mailto:dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't want to get embroiled in the main thread(s) but, just in > case > anyone is *really* dealing with UK addresses rather than using > them as > rhetorical examples, then ... > > On 03/12/2018 23:37, Anthony Moretti wrote: > > I see your point Hugh, especially in your case because for UK > addresses > > consisting of only house number and postcode structural > equality is > > sufficient for address equality. Decentralized will work very > well in > > that case. > > Sadly that's a long way from being true. UK addresses within a > postcode > my be identified by house name, house name + number, business > name (with > no house name or number at all), any of those plus a secondary > address > etc etc. Even when there's a house "number" sometimes its > actually a > number range not a single number and there's considerable > ambiguity on > how those ranges are expressed and what the "definitive" range > for a > given property really is. > > Identity of UK addresses is simply not something you can express > in OWL > or any logic close to it. You need an address reconciliation > algorithm > to map your address to an maintained identifier set such as a > UPRN or > UDPRN. The reconciliation process will have error rates that you > will > need to manage and recover from, there's no closed, guaranteed > algorithm. > > Once you have the UPRN or UDPRN or whatever you can create URI's > or some > inverse functional property as you wish. Except that even then the > official identifier schemes like that aren't perfect and have ... > oddities ... in them that can still mess you up. > > Generating unique keys for resources based on hashing a few > properties > is all very well in simple cases but, at least in my experience, > real > world problems are nothing like that simple clean. You need serious > effort to create and maintain identifier schemes and to > reconcile source > data against those schemes. Details like URIs or bNodes seem to me > rather down in the noise. > > Dave > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:07 PM Nathan Rixham > <nathan@webr3.org <mailto:nathan@webr3.org> > > <mailto:nathan@webr3.org <mailto:nathan@webr3.org>>> wrote: > > > > Hugh, do you mean something like bnode.id > <http://bnode.id> <http://bnode.id> = > > sha256(serialise(bnode)) > > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, 22:58 Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org > <mailto:hugh@glasers.org> > > <mailto:hugh@glasers.org <mailto:hugh@glasers.org>> wrote: > > > > This is not directly about blank nodes, but is a > reply to a > > message in the thread. > > > > I’m certainly agreeing that we should work towards common > > understanding of Thing equality. > > And addresses are a great place to start. > > In order for equality to be defined, I think that > means you > > first need an idea of what an unambiguous address > looks like. > > > > Having an oracle that defines what an unambiguous > Thing looks > > like is one organisational structure, and it would be > great if > > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> could lead > the way. > > It particularly helps people who just want an off the > shelf > > solution, especially if they have no knowledge of the > Thing domain. > > > > However I (and perhaps David Booth) am after > something more > > anarchic, that can function in a decentralised way > (if I dare to > > use that term! :-) ) > > For example, I might decide that I think that House > Number and > > PostCode is enough. > > (UK people will know that this is a commonly-used way of > > choosing an address, although it may well not be > satisfactory > > for some purposes, I’m sure.) > > That may well be sufficient for me to interwork with > datasets > > from Companies House, the Land Registry and a bunch > of other > > UK-based organisations, plus many other datasets. > > > > Having a simple standard way to create keys for such > things > > facilitates that, without any standardisation process > and all > > that entails in weaknesses and strengths of trying to get > > agreement on what an unambiguous address might look > like on a > > world scale for all purposes. > > > > Just generating a URI, without needing to make any > service calls > > (having found where they are and chosen the one you > want and > > compromised on it, etc.) or anything seems to me a > way of making > > all the interlinking so much more accessible for us all. > > It is even future proof:- using such a URI means that > if it is > > about something new (UK postcodes change all the time > :-(, and > > there are more dead ones than live ones), the oracle > doesn’t > > tell me anything it didn’t have until I ask again. > > In a key-generating world, my new shiny key will > slowly align > > with all the other key URIs as they get created. > > > > So yeah, all strength to anyone who wants to take on > the central > > roles, but not at the expense of killing the anarchic > solution, > > please. > > > > Cheers > > > > > On 3 Dec 2018, at 22:10, Anthony Moretti > > <anthony.moretti@gmail.com > <mailto:anthony.moretti@gmail.com> > <mailto:anthony.moretti@gmail.com > <mailto:anthony.moretti@gmail.com>>> > > wrote: > > > > > > Cheers for agreeing William. On the topic of > incomplete blank > > nodes Henry I'd give them another type, the partial > address > > example you give I'd give the type AddressComponent, or > > something to that effect. I could be wrong, but it's > not a valid > > Address if it's a blank node and no other information > in the > > graph completes it. > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 1:56 PM William Waites > > <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk > <mailto:wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> <mailto:wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk > <mailto:wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>>> wrote: > > > > standards like schema:PostalAddress should > possibly define > > relevant > > > > operations like equality checking too. > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2018 23:19:55 UTC