Dear Ed, (01)
EB> Matthew's idea that an organization should be the authority for terms
> that it should own is, of course, undeniable. But who takes ownership of
the
> general terms of the industry? (02)
MW: Well in the Process Industry ISO TC184/SC4 is trying to do this through
the ISO 15926 Reference Data Library (RDL), where industry level classes are
identified, defined, and given URIs.
>
> Steve's question about 'data types' is a good example of 'general terms of
an
> industry'. Or maybe it isn't. That is, one would think that owning the
> common terms of an industry would fall to a professional society or a
> respected industry association. Perhaps the IT industry is simply not yet
> mature enough to have an authoritative version of either. (03)
MW: Whilst ISO is where the standardisation takes place, it is of course
industry associations that develop the RDL. (04)
Regards (05)
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/ (06)
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. (07)
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> > - 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|