|From:||Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 28 Nov 2012 03:30:04 -0500|
Yes, all of those scary scenarios are scary. I wouldn't recommend the practices mentioned, such as abbreviation strings or other semi-meaningful IDs. Moreover, I wouldn't recommend anything that doesn't fit the actual use case; my advocacy of machine-generated opaque IDs is constrained to cases where there is sufficient payoff AND there is tool/interface/use support. It is also an extension of the general principal: have the humans do what humans are good at; offload work that humans are really bad at to the machine, if it is better. |
The opaque IDs I imagine are machine-generated and for machine use. They can, if needed, be used when humans need to use absolutely unique identifiers without going through the machine, but without further detail I would constrain my recommendation to cases in which that's pretty rare.
Using opaque IDs works with tools that properly distinguish name and label. Humans should always be able to see labels. At minimum, they should see preferred labels appropriate to their context. Often, and easily if they choose, they should see more. This is very clarifying. The KR language and tools need to support this (and some do, but not the most common off-the-shelf ones) in all visualization and interaction modes.
If you have multiple and/or distributed user communities, if your ontology is used and developed multilingually (and especially cross-lingually), if your ontology is used with not only reasoning but NLP (as in semantic indexing, search and retrieval over web, federated, cross-domain, multilingual and/or other other corpora beyond narrow control), you will need to create all of these alternate labels anyway.
If this isn't your situation, then machine-generated opaque IDs might not be best for you, and I might not recommend 'em. If this is your situation, as it is with many struggling ontology projects, then they may really solve your problem, if you have the tool support.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:06 AM, William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I agree with Patrick, and with Ed's remarks
_________________________________________________________________ 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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] doing standards [was - Re: Webby objects], terry.longstreth|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] doing standards [was - Re: Webby objects], William Frank|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] doing standards [was - Re: Webby objects], William Frank|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] doing standards [was - Re: Webby objects], doug foxvog|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|