Hans,
I heard earlier there's a process for updating the standard -- use
it. Translators send their translations to the ontology's central
authority, who add them to distributed files.
And you complain about 1M id's being distributed by a central
authority -- yet you're okay with 1M id's spread around the planet
in files out of control of a central authority? That's not
sustainable. Whether a consumer ingests all language-qualified
triples is her choice.
Lastly, the idea of not creating resources (with sameAs triples) for
each label is, on the face of it, inconsistent with the pride you
imply from having first class string resources.
/jmc
On 2/2/2014 5:52 AM, Hans Teijgeler
wrote:
John,
Thanks, I used the SKOS way.
Why would the maintainers of the
RDL do all the translation work? Who pays for that?
You
did not make it clearer than what I had. If
only a fraction (say 20) of the 546 languages listed in ISO
639 (http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php)
would be used for these translations of, say, 50,000
concepts, that would be a very costly exerccise. Besides
you would add some one million IDs to the whole.
So if I may, using your correction:
<dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject
rdf:about="RDS6462148">
<skos:prefLabel xml:lang="en">API 610-BB2 SINGLE STAGE
CENTRIFUGAL PUMP</skos:prefLabel>
<skos:definition xml:lang="en">A single or two stage,
impeller between bearings, radial split
casing, centrifugal pump designed according to
the requirements stated in API 610 for code
BB2 pumps.</skos:definition>
......
</dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject>
At the French
RDL endpoint:
<dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject
rdf:about="&rdl;RDS6462148">
<skos:altLabel xml:lang="fr">API
610-BB2 ÉTAPE SIMPLE POMPE
CENTRIFUGE</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>
......
</dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject>
and at the Chinese
endpoint:
<dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject
rdf:about="&rdl;RDS6462148">
<skos:altLabel
xml:lang="zh">API610-BB2单
级离心泵</skos:altLabel>
<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>
Regards,
Hans
Hans Teijgeler,
Laanweg 28,
1871 BJ Schoorl,
Netherlands
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/
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|