|
John,
That happens already. You can create an extension of
the RDL in the French language and state:
<dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject
rdf:about="&rdl;RDS6462148">
<skos:altLabel>"API 610-BB2 ÉTAPE SIMPLE POMPE
CENTRIFUGE"@fr</skos:altLabel>
<skos:definition>"Un seul ou deux étapes, la roue
entre paliers, carter fendu radial, pompe centrifuge
conçu selon les exigences énoncées
dans l'API 610 pour le code pompes BB2."@fr</skos:definition>
........
</dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject>
and in
Chinese:
<dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject
rdf:about="&rdl;RDS6462148">
<skos:altLabel>"API610-BB2单级离心泵"@zh</skos:altLabel>
<skos:definition>"轴承，径向剖分机壳，离心泵根据API610码BB2泵规定的要求设计之间的单一或两个阶段，叶轮。"@zh</skos:definition>
........
</dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject>
Excuses for
any funny Google translation (if applicable).
Regards,
Hans
Hans Teijgeler,
Laanweg 28,
1871 BJ Schoorl,
Netherlands
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)
|