Re: [ontology-summit] [ReusableContent] Partitioning the problem

[Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx>]

David, 

It seems to me that the problem you raise is an artifact of your particular approach, which ignores the fact that the ontology language in question distinguishes labels-for-humans from labels-for-machines. You want to use the latter for the purposes of the former, and then complain that it doesn't work. And your supposed solution will work if all of the human understand the phrases you choose, and understand them the same way. Even within the same language, that's rare; it's sure doesn't work across languages, business units, or time. On the other hand, multiple, properly lexicalized labels and a UI smart enough to use them are regularly used to make things understood and findable by individual users, across all three. In Enterprise applications, in non-academic settings, and beyond. 

Your proposed solution - as best I can tell, to choose one target set of humans and make the (meant for machine consumption) URIs (or even names!) understandable to them, while ignoring the polysemy-tolerant, built-for-natural-language labeling features of the ontology language, is inherently antithetical to reuse (including use over time). 

Best,

Amanda

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 2:44 PM, David Price <dprice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 1 Feb 2014, at 19:28, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> 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.

Hi Kingsley,

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.

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.

Next topic please:-)

Cheers,
David

>
> 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/


_________________________________________________________________
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/

_________________________________________________________________
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/     (01)