Re: [ontology-summit] [ReusableContent] Partitioning the problem

[Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx>]

An even bigger problem is that owl:sameAs is unlikely to won't work the way in the way that is desired, especially under the OWL 2-DL  Direct Semantics.

Asserting that an IRI  is owl:sameAs another IRI is a statement about these IRIs as  Individuals.  Assertions about those IRIs as Classes or Properties are independent of assertions about Individuals.

:ClassA rdf:type owl:Class.

:ClassB rdf:type owl:Class.

:ClassA owl:sameAs :ClassB

:anA rdf:type ClassA.

Does not entail 

:classA owl:equivalentClass :classB. 

or 

:anA rdf:type :ClassB.    

Depending on characteristics of a specific reasoner hinders interoperability and hence reuse. 

Simon 

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Mike Bennett <mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The problem with using owl:sameAs is that you have immediately changed the nature of your model: from a model of concepts to a model of words. That is, from an ontology to a vocabulary.

As long as it's clear which one of those you are doing, that's fine. But I find an ontology of concepts to be far more useful than a vocabulary of words.

The only place I would use owl:sameAs is when mapping between ontologies that have concepts with the same meanings.

Mike

On 02/02/2014 12:45, John McClure wrote:

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

www.mnei.nl

---

From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John McClure
Sent: zondag 2 februari 2014 12:47
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [ReusableContent] Partitioning the problem

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.

Agreed!

Ali

Amanda

 

--


(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,

_________________________________________________________________
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/

_________________________________________________________________
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)