I couldn't "agree" more with Andrea and Chime on this one. And would like to
see some good reason(s) for us to continue to be burdened by them.
The standard answer - 'tooling can help in managing the readability aspects'
has been heard several times, and yet everyone seems to pass around 'raw RDF or
SPARQL snippets with readable URIs' - for sure these will be absolutely
unreadable if we were to use totally opaque identifiers.
I recently had a discussion on this topic with Michel (during Semtech) and this
exact line of thinking that Mark alluded to in his email came up:
"though I guess, for them, "partOf" *is* opaque... so...?? Perhaps
that argument is somewhat spurious??"
--Sivaram
____________________________
Sivaram Arabandi, MD, MS
Ph: 216.374.2883
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SivaramArabandi
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sivaram-arabandi/1/9ab/92a
On Jun 20, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Chime Ogbuji wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Andrea Splendiani wrote:
>> Hi,
>> sorry to jump on this thread like this...
>>
>> To be honest, I'm kind of concerned by the insistence on semantic-opaque
>> identifiers.
> I am as well and I have been for some time.
>> I understand the reason for them,
>
> Actually, I would be interested in hearing the reason for them enumerated,
> because I have had a hard time imagining what could possibly offset the
> (significant) impact on readability that it has on biomedical ontologies.
> The barrier is already high for non-logicians and non-semantic web
> aficionados to use biomedical ontologies. Why set it any higher?
>
> -- Chime
>
