David, (01)
I am not at all certain I know how to read your question, but one
interpretation is this: (02)
There exists a concept (subject 'out there') that we commonly think of
as "policy number" (as a concept, a very good subject identifier key). (03)
Now, you say there are actually some 70 different "labels" (aka name
strings) for that concept, one of which is "M0101.." (which makes no
sense to me as a label for a key: sounds more like one of the values
associated with that key). (04)
Ok. Le't assume we are just talking about that key. Lets put it into a
frame-like representation to see if I got it right. (05)
Frame: rdf:ID = "<some uri>"
commonLabel: policy number
otherLabels: M01010, .....
domain: ....
range: ..... (06)
That's organized just as it would be in either some ontology, or even
a topic map. Same idea: frame-like representations. (07)
Notice I granted that frame a URI as its unique identifier. That
identifier serves as a database id, and could also serve externally in
RDF triples elsewhere; it's a key, which means it's a predicate
associated with a subject and a value. (08)
That's how I'm interpreting your question, and through that
interpretation, showing a role for a URI within both the topic map and
ontology contexts. (09)
Please tell he if I got it wrong. (010)
Would that be an issue in a URI approach? If you are asking if it's ok
to have many different labels within a given, say, OWL ontology, the
concept for which is identified by (w3c says: "named" by) a URI? I
can't think of any reason why you cannot do that. But, I don't think
of myself as an OWL expert. (011)
Let me ask this question: suppose you do have a concept which we agree
conveys the intuitively obvious meaning of a property type called
"policy number", and suppose that someone else's ontology uses the
label "policy number" for a concept that does not mean the same thing
at all. A query to some information system returns two different URIs.
How would you go about differentiating which to use? (012)
Jack (013)
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:57 PM, David Eddy <deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jack -
>
> On 2011-04-21, at 4:43 PM, Jack Park wrote:
>
>> (setting aside the simplistic notion that one URI satisfies all
>> users)?
>
>
> I offer... in 1980 I worked at a life insurance company renowned for
> it's data management efforts (this is NOT 'data management' in
> context of disks & storage).
>
> They had found 70 different labels/names for the core business
> concept "policy number." The one I still remember was M0101... an
> excellent Fortran name.
>
> Would that be an issue with the URI approach?
>
> ___________________
> David Eddy
> deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|