My comments inline:
On 4/26/09 5:34 PM, "John Graybeal" <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: (02)
> Hi Duane,
> On Apr 22, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Duane Nickull wrote:
>> The problem is that there are no namespace qualifications for these so I want
>> to introduce that into my work. I was planning on just using the root URLıs
>> for each work however there are versions possible in some of the work.
>> I would like this to be in the firm of
>> <upper_ontology_identifier>+<version_or_instance>+<uuid> as a classifier
>> followed by the term label such as ³transitive². I will probably use URIıs
>> for the UUID.
>> Has anyone ever come across a similar problem and if so, how did they solve
> We came across two similar problems, I think. We are republishing
> vocabularies, so it is I believe analogous. Some questions for you that you
> have, I imagine, thought about, then my own contributions.
DN: I don't think that is quite the same. Vocabularies are terms while
mapping terms to concepts is the work I am pursuing within a metadata
> 1) I am not sure what your '+' means -- I assume it is a literal? And what
> does 'as a classifier' mean -- everything that comes before the 'term label'?
> More specifics would be helpful here, unless everyone else understands
DN: Sorry - I may have not been clear. It is meant as a logical
concatenation operator. What I would like to have is something like this: (03)
This corresponds to a specific concept in a specific version of SUMO. This
work has currently been done for one ontology via wordnet
My goal is to map the terms from multiple languages and contexts to multiple
upper ontologies. (06)
> 2) By 'uuid' I assume you mean the UUID for the original term. Is it definite
> that all the ontologies have a clearly usable UUID for each of their terms?
> (For example, if the UUID is constructed with a fragment syntax ('#'), your
> URL will get a bit weird, won't it? And I *think* some references to URLs
> within URLs (whether URL#1 is your UUID) can require some ugly expansions in
> some http circumstances, but I haven't had to master that myself yet. (07)
DN: Not quite but close. The UUID for the concept rather than the term.
This could be encoded as a URL however that would likely lead to
dependencies which I would not want to introduce. Notice how elegant the
wordnet concept<->word mapping is without URL's.
> 3) I am a little lost as to the value of adding the label, if it is the label
> of the term identified by the UUID. This makes me worry I may have
> misunderstood your goal.
> My thoughts in response:
> In one of our scenarios we had to deal with people who want URNs instead of
> URLs, while we always wanted to have a URL for all our terms. A
> quasi-solution we found is to embed the URN, as a sort of literal code, inside
> the URL, so that part of your model seems at least consistent with what we
> came up with.
DN: Since I am doing this project largely on my own, I have the luxury of
making up all the rules ;-) In true REST fashion, each concept would have a
> In our whole world of use cases we had to deal with versioning. While in
> theory we could have supported any style of version, we ended up making an
> ISO8601 look-alike, that goes into as much detail (days, hours, milliseconds
> (!)) as required to ensure uniqueness from previous submissions. This
> provided useful visual context and avoided considering weird versioning labels
> that might have been URL- or user-unfriendly. So the notion of the version is
> consistent too.
> The one thing about versions is that they are pretty consistent if you can
> align them with the moment a resource is submitted. But if you are trying to
> capture the version of an external resource, you'll have to decide what you
> mean by 'version' of that resource, considering (a) they may not version, (b)
> you may not have the ability to inspect their version transitions -- either
> when they happen or what the change was, and (c) you'll have to decide what
> relation you want between uniqueness and version ID (different term guarantees
> different version, vice-versa, or both?). Ick.
DN: I agree. Ick! There is probably no one-size-fits-all solution here.
> Details are buried in various documents associated with our semantic framework
> , I can provide specific pointers to our URL construction notions (or you
> can search on the site) if you want them.
> Hope this helps.
DN: it definitely helps. Thank you for the resource link. (08)
>  MMI Semantic Framework: http://marinemetadata.org/semanticframework
> John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal@xxxxxxxxx> -- 831-775-1956
> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)