Just define separate resources for an identifier and translated
names, each with an owl:sameAs triple directing either person or
tool to the normative resource, named in the author's own language.
This normative definition can contain rdfs:labels and or skos'
labels or skos notation who cares.
If one's tools can't handle owl:sameAs then yeah, they're a bit
primitive. (Fortunately semantic wikis handle sameAs quite
naturally).
My point is that if ontologies or datasets publish/use identifiers
of any sort, but don't publish also resources with such sameAs
triples, its authors risk unfriendly comments for foisting this task
on everyone else. So yeah, this is a best practice for identifiers
that should be in the communique for reuse.
/jmc
On 2/2/2014 1:15 AM, Matthew West
wrote:
Dear
David, Ali, Amanda, and Kingsley,
Since
this arose from considering ISO 15926, and there was at
least an implicit criticism involved, let me just explain
what we were expecting to happen.
We
were not expecting others to use the thing ID in ISO 15926-2
to identify their internal data in their programs or even
databases, although this is, of course, a choice that is
available if it is convenient. We were expecting a situation
in which different systems had pre-existing names for the
different classes, and they were not about to change. One of
the reasons we had support for multiple names was so we
could provide a mapping of these names, minimising what was
needed to be done within the existing systems. So we
expected local copies of the RDL to include the local names
of the classes for each system a names for those classes,
with which systems used that name, so that translations
could be done. It was anticipated that the RDL itself would
be held in a database, and so a non-human readable ID would
be adequate.
Of
course things change in 10+ years, though we had similar
discussions then, that I note are being had now. In the end
you have to decide, nothing is likely to be right for
everything.
Regards
Matthew
West
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ali SH
Sent: 02 February 2014 00:52
To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [ReusableContent]
Partitioning the problem
Dear Amanda,
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM,
Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I understand, but I think
it is mostly a tooling problem. The tools do
not use the appropriate formal language
features. Humans shouldn't be writing or
debugging SPARQL queries with only the
concept ID visible, whether it is opaque or
suggestive. Either way, there is extra
lookup (out of the cognitive task space) and
a greater likelihood of error than is really
tenable. Unfortunately, that is mostly the
state of the art in open/COTS tools, but the
way to fix it isn't to make the IDs more
suggestive (and conducive to error); it's to
make the tools use the human-oriented
features of the language when interfacing
with humans. BTW, I specified state of the
art in *COTS* tools, because I've seen a
number of proprietary tools, developed for
use within an company only, that don't make
this same error. I'm perpetually frustrated
that we don't have the same level of tooling
in the open-source or COTS worlds. But it is
not a coincidence that the companies in
question have done well in developing
semantic enterprise or web systems with
those ontologies as components. They take
their ontologies, and the processes
concerning them, rather seriously.
Yes. Fully agree here. In the
example I cited, the tooling was just atrocious, and
better tools would have addressed the problem.
I just don't think the
solution is to treat the ontology language as
more impoverished than it really is. We know
there is far to go in improving tools, anyway.
I'd say that one of the improvements should be
to make tools that use the existing support
for co-existing human-readability and
machine-uniqueness.
--
(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|