I'm willing to live with multiple authorities, as long as they provide
stable URIs that I can point to. Then at least people can find out what
definitions I'm using in my models. (01)
- Steve (02)
Steven R. Ray, Ph.D.
Distinguished Research Fellow
Carnegie Mellon University
NASA Research Park
Building 23 (MS 23-11)
P.O. Box 1
Moffett Field, CA 94305-0001
Email: steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: (650) 587-3780
Cell: (202) 316-6481
Skype: steverayconsulting (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Barkmeyer [mailto:edbark@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:57 AM
To: steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] URIs [was: Truth] (04)
Steve Ray wrote:
> Matthew,
> I completely agree with you, and would be interested to hear from
> this group what they believe are authoritative URIs for common data
> types such as:
>
> Float (or Real)
> Integer
> Boolean
> String
> (05)
I have never met a datatype term that the information technology community
couldn't argue about indefinitely. (06)
The problem is: Who is the registration authority for things like this?
And who is willing to concede that authority? The W3C attitude is that
these have been defined in XML Schema part 2: Datatypes. The JCP attitude
is that, for matters related to Java, the Java standards are the authority
for such datatypes. Fortunately, tthe JCP lot were able to convince W3C to
use their types in XML Schema, but then, so were the SQL folk, and most
modelers prefer xsd:integer to xsd:long as the name for Integer. And the
ISO 11179 "metadata registry" folk think the registered names are ISO URIs
for 'technical elements' of ISO 11404.
What we have is multiple communities who claim the authority, based on
having published standards for certain implementation communities. (07)
So it seems to me that we will get multiple URIs for these datatype
concepts, each of which has a definition in a standard written by whichever
community owns that URI. And some poor souls will have to determine whether
the extensions of the defined concepts are really the same, or were intended
to be, or not. And then they will have to get everyone to agree that their
repository of equivalences or subtypes or whatever is authoritative. In
short, nomenclature standards really don't work over large communities until
the supporting technology stops changing. And if we have to agree on both a
term and its definition, it will be even harder. (08)
In a similar way, Matthew is certainly right about Ferraris, but who is the
internationally accepted authority for motor vehicle terminology?
ODETTE? Is it a "hood" or a "bonnet" or some other bizarre term no one
actually uses? Does everyone agree on the meaning of "power train"? (09)
> And then, thoughts on the same for measured quantities such as:
>
> AbsoluteDateTime
> Duration
> (I'll stop here for now)
> (010)
Yeah. You don't want to put the objective any further than Arhhem. But you
are already a bridge too far. (011)
The unarguable authority for what Steve calls 'duration' is BIPM, reference
source for all the basic measurement concepts. Their publications, e.g.,
the International System of (measurement) Units (SI), refer to that kind of
quantity as 'time'. The generally agreed upon authority for date and time
expressions is ISO 8601, but I don't think it uses the term "Absolute Date
Time" at all. Unlike computational datatypes, which change with technology,
however, these latter concepts have established international authorities. (012)
There is still the issue of whether everyone agrees on the nomenclature for
those concepts, as Steve's choice of terms indicates. This is not really a
problem in RDF. The term is not 'time' or 'duration', it is
"http://www.bipm.org/publications/SI#time";, or something very similar.
The problem arises from humans trying to interpret only the last 4
characters of that URI, without visiting the site and examining the
definition. As in most such things, we have met the enemy and they is us. (013)
-Ed (014)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800 (015)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have
not been reviewed by any Government authority." (016)
> - Steve
>
>
>
> Steven R. Ray, Ph.D.
> Distinguished Research Fellow
> Carnegie Mellon University
> NASA Research Park
> Building 23 (MS 23-11)
> P.O. Box 1
> Moffett Field, CA 94305-0001
> Email: steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: (650) 587-3780
> Cell: (202) 316-6481
> Skype: steverayconsulting
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:37 AM
> To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] URIs [was: Truth]
>
> Dear Doug,
>
> I think this is an important point.
>
> DF> The more that people reuse existing URIs instead of inventing their
> DF> own,
> the
>
>> more utility the massive tuple stores can provide.
>>
>
> MW: One of the things I try to promote is the idea of an authoritative
> source, so not only are there relatively few URIs for the same thing, but
> there is a natural preference for which one to use. So to cross threads,
if
> we are looking for what URI to use to identify Ferrari 458 Italia, the
one
> Ferrari uses should be preferred, because they are clearly the
authoritative
> source.
>
> MW: This has the corollary that authoritative sources have the
> responsibility to create URIs for the things they are responsible for.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2195 / Virus Database: 2437/5127 - Release Date: 07/12/12
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (017)
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2195 / Virus Database: 2437/5127 - Release Date: 07/12/12 (018)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (019)
|