Hans,
I've corrected the illegal XML syntax you had for strings, too.
/jmc
<dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject
rdf:about="&rdl;RDS6462148">
<skos:altLabel
xml:lang="fr">API 610-BB2 ÉTAPE SIMPLE POMPE
CENTRIFUGE</skos:altLabel>
<skos:altLabel
xml:lang="zh">API610-BB2单级离心泵</skos:altLabel>
<skos:definition
xml:lang="fr">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.</skos:definition>
<skos:definition xml:lang="zh">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。</skos:definition>
</dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject>
<dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject
rdf:about="&rdl;API 610-BB2 ÉTAPE SIMPLE POMPE CENTRIFUGE">
<owl:sameAs rdf:resource="&rdl;RDS6462148"/>
</dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject>
<dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject
rdf:about="&rdl;API610-BB2单
级离心泵">
<owl:sameAs rdf:resource="&rdl;RDS6462148"/>
</dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject>
On 2/2/2014 5:05 AM, Hans Teijgeler wrote:
John,
Why would I use owl:sameAs if I can
use the remotely addressed original ID? I
simply add information to that ID.
So when a Chinese company wants the
texts on some presentation form (screen, document) in
Chinese, and I have it in English, I can produce that
Chinese text by fetching it from the Chinese RDL extension.
We can even store "boilerplate
texts", because in ISO 15926 text strings are classes as
well.
Regards,
Hans
Hans Teijgeler,
Laanweg 28,
1871 BJ Schoorl,
Netherlands
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/
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|