On 7/12/12 3:42 PM, Steve Ray wrote:
> 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.
+1 (01)
Kingsley
>
> - 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: 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]
>
>
>
> 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
>>
> I have never met a datatype term that the information technology community
> couldn't argue about indefinitely.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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"?
>
>> And then, thoughts on the same for measured quantities such as:
>>
>> AbsoluteDateTime
>> Duration
>> (I'll stop here for now)
>>
> Yeah. You don't want to put the objective any further than Arhhem. But you
> are already a bridge too far.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -Ed
> (02)
-- (03)
Regards, (04)
Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen (05)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|