On 1 Feb 2014, at 19:28, Kingsley Idehen wrote: (01)
> On 2/1/14 1:17 PM, David Price wrote:
>>> We have a very different perception of the notion of an enterprise.
>>
>> Actually, not. I have no interest at all in discussing what "enterprise"
>means.
>>
>> I'm trying to explain that there are kinds of *apps*, which I have called
>"enterprise applications", with characteristics that imply specific
>requirements and rules governing the kind and development of ontologies upon
>which they are based. I've also suggested that what apparently works in the
>linked data world is not suitable for these kinds of apps.
>
> And I am saying to you that if these so-called "enterprise applications" are
>to be marginally useful circa. 2014, there is nothing about Linked Data
>patterns (espoused by the Linked Data community and demonstrated by Linked
>Data solutions) that's adversely affects said utility.
>> Nothing more than that ... remember this discussion started because of my
>requirement for human readable URIs.
>
> Human readable URIs a broken because they are human language specific.
>Identifiers should never be constrained to a specific human language like
>English. You solve the problem via labels and language tags.
>
> As for your SPARQL example, that isn't the kind of example that reflects what
>would happen in an enterprise comprised of humans. In all cases, humans will
>start with a natural language pattern in their native language. (02)
Hi Kingsley, (03)
I'm not talking about NL at all. I'm talking about naming software artefacts
and suggesting that human readable is a requirement. I never said a word
about English. Make them all French, I don't mind. If you're building your app
in China use the appropriate language for your IRIs. One of our current apps
has ontologies that are a mix of English and Norwegian ... that's fine too. ANY
human language is better than random noise that you suggest. (04)
In every place you say never, I say always. Since you're free to ignore the
fact that the URIs are human readable but I can't ingore your random noise, it
seems to me that my view should prevail. The problem I raise cannot be solved
with labels - that's now the 4th or 5th time I've had to say that ... but at
least it's the last. (05)
Next topic please:-) (06)
Cheers,
David (07)
>
> Kingsley
>>
>> Cheers,
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (09)
|