Doug, (01)
While I agree with your thesis below, it is my impression that OWL:sameAs
serves one or two very important functions.
(1) A third party, whose ontology imports two ontologies produced by
independent authors who had no knowledge of each other's work, can 'integrate'
those ontologies by identifying the concepts s/he understands to be the same
(at least for his/her UoD) and equating them with owl:sameAs in the importing
ontology. (02)
(2) In a related way, we have developed ontologies with 'placeholder' concepts
that we intend to model properly after we have captured the real meat of the
domain concerns. When we thereafter find a suitable ontology for the
placeholder concept, we import it, and use owl:sameAs to equate our placeholder
URI with the concept in the real model. If efficiency is a concern, then yes,
someone will go back and do a ReplaceAll in our ontology, but it is usually
necessary to test that the imported ontology does what is expected, i.e.,
really is consistent with our intent, and by the time that is done, the
owl:sameAs is in some documented pilot. (03)
-Ed (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 2:01 AM
> To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [ReusableContent] Partitioning the problem
>
> On Sun, February 2, 2014 09:08, John McClure wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I've been wondering what the point is of generating large numbers of
> additional URIs and associating them with owl:sameAs. The point now seems
> to be pride.
>
> Reasoning with owl:sameAs introduces additional complexity & slows down
> reasoning.
> I don't thing that pride is worth that. Surely not pride that you attribute
>to
> others who see not need for it.
>
> If the URIs are meant to be human readable, spawning multiple copies will be
> quite confusing, making it take more effort for a human to realize that two
> different URIs are supposed to be the same as each other. If the URIs are
> not supposed to be looked at by humans, such problems would go away --
> but if they are only supposed to be machine readable, why create them in
> the first place?
>
> I see problems, but no benefits in spawning multiples URIs for the same
> concept (be it class, individual, or relation). Use owl:sameAs when two
> groups have independently developed concepts that turn out to represent
> the same thing. If you are building on previous work or working together
> with someone, use the same terms.
>
> -- doug f
>
> > /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:
> >> _At the RDL endpoint _http://posccaesar.org/rdl/page/_:_
> >> <dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject rdf:about="RDS6462148">
> >> <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="en">API 610-BB2 SINGLE STAGE
> CENTRIFUGAL
> >> PUMP</skos:prefLabel> <skos:definitionxml: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:definitionxml: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? ????</skos:altLabel>
> >> <skos:definitionxml:lang="zh">? ?,????? ?,? ??? ?API610?BB2??
> >> ???????????? ????,? ??</skos:definition>
> >> ......
> >> </dm:ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject>
> >> Regards,
> >> Hans
> >> Hans Teijgeler,
> >> Laanweg 28,
> >> 1871 BJ Schoorl,
> >> Netherlands
> >> www.mnei.nl <http://www.mnei.nl/>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ---
> >> *From:* ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of
> *John
> >> McClure
> >> *Sent:* zondag 2 februari 2014 14:18
> >> *To:* Ontology Summit 2014 discussion
> >> *Subject:* Re: [ontology-summit] [ReusableContent] Partitioning the
> >> problem
> >>
> >> 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?????</skos:altLabel>
> >> <skos:definitionxml: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:definitionxml:lang="zh">? ?,??????,?
> >> ????API610?BB2??
> >> ???????????? ????,???</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?
> ????">
> >> <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
> >>> www.mnei.nl <http://www.mnei.nl/>
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> ----
> >>> *From:* ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of
> >>> *John McClure
> >>> *Sent:* zondag 2 februari 2014 13:45
> >>> *To:* ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [ontology-summit] [ReusableContent] Partitioning the
> >>> problem
> >>>
> >>> 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?? ?? ?"@zh</skos:altLabel>
> >>>> <skos:definition>"? ?,????? ?,? ??? ?API610?BB2?? ????????????
> >>>> ????,? ??"@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 <http://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
> <mailto: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
> >>>>> <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
> >>>>> <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-s
> >>> ummit/ 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/ (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (06)
|