On Jun 21, 2011, at 11:24 PM, Chime Ogbuji wrote:
> Pat, I don't think this discussion was meant to apply to the semantic web
> generally
Im glad to hear so. It did rather sound like it was. however, hence my
hair-tearing.
> (but primarily to biomedical ontologies - hence the relevance to thi
Pat, I don't think this discussion was meant to apply to the semantic web
generally (but primarily to biomedical ontologies - hence the relevance to this
interest group mailing list) and as much as I agree with you about the issues
associated with requiring opaque identifiers, this discussion is
This entire discussion is simply absurd, if it is supposed to apply to the
semantic web generally. OF COURSE people are not going to re-name the RDFS or
OWL vocabulary (for example) with 'opaque' names. Programming languages are not
going to use opaque identifiers for their reserved vocabularie
Hello,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM, James Malone wrote:
> So.. a long but useful discussion. That will teach me to open my big mouth :)
>
> Is this fair as the PRIMARY reasons for this difference in opinions:
>
> 1. Having semantic information such as a label in a URI makes it easier
> t
> I think one of the main point is the role of the 'web'.
The role of the 'web' in Semantic Web is that we can publish and share our
formalized data/knowledge using HTTP URIs - with minimal coordination (e.g.
once you find something you like, you can reference it using its URI;
regardless of wh
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:41:12 -0700, Andrea Splendiani
wrote:
I bet we could make a test and see
the correlation between who prefers opaque vs transparent ids, and who
prefers OWL-apis vs Jena.
:-) I bet you are absolutely correct about that! :-)
M
Skipping the line of reasoning that leads to these conclusions...
I think one of the main point is the role of the 'web'.
Whether we are talking about terminologies encoded in OWL/RDF, or about a
distributed web-based information space. I bet we could make a test and see
the correlation between
Personally, I don't want tooling to "help". I want to be able to look
at what would otherwise be a perfectly readable serialization
(Manchester OWL, Turtle, etc.) and be able to read and write it
without constantly referring to lookups. I've seen this discussion in
the software engineering world ma
So.. a long but useful discussion. That will teach me to open my big mouth :)
Is this fair as the PRIMARY reasons for this difference in opinions:
1. Having semantic information such as a label in a URI makes it easier
to, at a glance, grasp some sort of meaning of a class/predicate and makes
SPA
Hi,
I think there is some confusion going on on the subject.
We need to name things in an unique way. In many cases codes are just the
best option. No wonder we all have tax-codes and the like, it's easier than
to try to find a unique name based on some attributes.
The case of terminologies is a
FYI, the rationale behind the use of identifiers for SNOMED-CT (ironically
enough, given this thread) was to allow for some organizational semantics to be
embedded in them. See:
http://www.ihtsdo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Docs_01/Publications/SNOMED_CT/SNOMED_CT_Identifiers_v1.0.pdf
[[[
The Sct
Other standards (outside of semantic web) saw the need to rely on numeric
identifiers, even if that created a burden for their users
e.g. in SNOMED Lung = T-28000
Of course it is a pain to query SNOMED with "all the diseases that affect
T-28000".
But the fact is that despite the inconvenience of h
Here's my thinking: The whole point of the semantic web is to get away from
relying on terms. Why would you intentionally want to become dependent upon
labels (terms)?
Label's are not identifiers; they are annotations. There is no uniqueness
guarantee. A concept can have many labels and many co
I think all those who suggested "semantic-less" or "meaning-less"
identifiers should come out and define what they mean by
"semantics/meaning".
Does a URI "http://example.com/foo#good"; carries the semantics of *good*
as how the word "good" is defined in an English dictionary? Unless there
is a sp
Here is a reminder for tomorrow's LODD teleconference. Steve Pettifer
(UManchester) will join us to describe a circular reference problem
that he has identified with a chemical compound as the example. We
will discuss the problem and how to develop practices that could help
to prevent it.
http://w
Oops... Bad link correction:
Slides 51-52 of
www.reengineeringllc.com/Internet_Business_Logic_e-Government_Presentation.pdf
Apologies, -- Adrian
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Adrian Walker wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Sorry to come in so late to this discussion but
>
> It would seem that the m
Hi All,
Sorry to come in so late to this discussion but
It would seem that the meaning that resides in the application (or in a
SPARQL query) should be part of the discussion. Even if the data
identifiers have really fine readable meanings, an application can change
the semantics completely.
17 matches
Mail list logo
