ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] URIs [was: Truth]

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:55:41 +0100
Message-id: <4fffd480.6e0cb50a.386e.ffff8587@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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)

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