No sir that's not what I am saying. Please reread my post, and use
owl:sameAs.
On 2/2/2014 4:43 AM, Hans Teijgeler
wrote:
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/
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|