[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Namespaces for ontologies

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: John Graybeal <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:17:07 -0700
Message-id: <23182752-0ACA-47EE-9E67-23E1F6F074B9@xxxxxxxxx>

On Apr 27, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Duane Nickull wrote:    (01)

> On 4/26/09 5:34 PM, "John Graybeal" <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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
> facility.    (02)

Oh, I have found terms and concepts to be pretty interchangeable so  
far, it is all in how you look at it!  (I was going to say "it's just  
a matter of semantics", but that comment is probably about as  
inflammatory as the preceding sentence, at least on this list. :->)  
No,  no, I do appreciate the greater truth of your statement, really.    (03)

> SUMO:Version1:104379243
> This corresponds to a specific concept in a specific version of  
> SUMO.  This
> work has currently been done for one ontology via wordnet
> http://sigma.ontologyportal.org:4010/sigma/WordNet.jsp? 
> word=table&POS=1    (04)

Ooh, thank you for this link, Very interesting.    (05)

> My goal is to map the terms from multiple languages and contexts to  
> multiple
> upper ontologies.
>> 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.
> 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.    (06)

Right, nice!  But you will always want the lookup ability too (at  
which point it all gets messy Right Quick).  Still, it does tempt one  
to assign a nice little identifier.  On the other hand, I don't think  
the number 104379243  is a UUID, it is merely a unique Wordnet  
identifier. So (a) you have dependencies (but reliable ones,  
presumably) and (b) the URL to look up that number may change, if that  
matters to you.    (07)

It's OK to introduce dependencies if you have organizational control  
over them (and guarantee they will not be violated for issued URIs),  
is my thinking. So I decided we wouldn't worry about introducing URL- 
ish dependencies.  They are unique and we can ensure they stay that  
way, just as Wordnet ensures 104379243 will never be used for  
something else.    (08)

John    (09)

John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal@xxxxxxxxx>  -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org    (010)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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    (011)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>