> From: Andrea Splendiani
>
> One thing that I think would be very useful, though it poses some
> semantic problem... is the possibility to assert equivalence in rdf.
> At the moment equivalence can be asserted only in owl (and this
> implies a distinction between individuals, properties, clas
Hi Jonathan,
Comments on
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/uris/
version of 28 April 2008 11:57 -0400.
General thoughts:
- It's been a while since I read a draft, but this looks like great progress.
- Overall it feels heavy on the rationale and light on getting to the point of
what to do
Eric,
Good idea! Something else to add:
- A URI definition should clearly indicate its change policy.
Also, I think it would be good for Jonathan's note to point to the quick tips.
David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hp.com/go/software
Opi
> From: jim herber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> David, do you like "data model to conceptual mapping" better?
Yes, to my eyes that seems more descriptive of the intent, though it is a bit
long. :)
David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hp.com/g
+1. Except I find the term "syntactic mapping" somewhat misleading, because to
my mind, the anti-pattern you are describing involves the encoding of
syntactic-level concerns into the ontology, which as you point out, shouldn't
be there. So pertonally I would have been more inclined to call it
. . . are at
http://www.w3.org/2007/12/10-BioRDF-minutes
and also below in plain text. Sorry I forgot to sent them out on Monday. New
action items:
[NEW] ACTION: Kei to provide query that makes use of SenseLab graph [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/10-BioRDF-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW]
Regrets - I'll be traveling.
David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hp.com/go/software
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the
official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
> -Original Message--
Regrets from me too. Also taking the day off.
David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hp.com/go/software
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the
official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
> -
Peter,
> From: Peter Ansell
> [ . .. . ]
> Suppose two people come up with slightly different, but mutually
> useful, definitions at the same time and, before an authority has
> declared them to be the same, want to use both of the definitions in
> queries, and advertise them so they can be used
Minutes from today's telecon are at:
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/22-BioRDF-minutes.html
and also below in plain text.
David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hp.com/go/software
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent th
Minutes from today's BioRDF meeting:
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-BioRDF-minutes.html
David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hp.com/go/software
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the
official views of HP unless
Having just formally joined the SemWeb-LifeSci Interest Group I thought
I should introduce myself, though many of you know me from this and
other forums already.
I am an architect in HP Software, primarily interested in architectural
issues around the adoption and use of Semantic Web technologies
FYI, this paper and talk from Jim Melton of Oracle may be of interest:
http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/schedule/paper/119
http://www.w3.org/2006/Talks/0301-melton-query-langs.pdf
In the paper he mentions:
[[
SPARQL syntax makes virtually all join operations implicit, while SQL
syntax usually makes th
> From: Greg Tyrelle
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 6:42 AM
> [ . . . ]
> Do you want to make statements about the HTML representation of the
> database records in SGD ? I will assume this is not the case as these
> records already have URL identifiers. Or do you want to make
> statements about
> From: Phillip Lord
> [ . . . ]
> I don't understand the desire to implement everything using
> HTTP. Why call lots of things, which are actually several
> protocols by a name which suggests that they are all one. How
> to distinguish between an HTTP URI which allows you to do
> location independ
> From: Hilmar Lapp
> [ . . . ]
> In the LSID resolver spec resolution doesn't depend on the authority
> domain name.
Just so you're aware, the *exact* same thing can be achieved with HTTP
URIs, as described here:
http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/
For example, given the URI
>
http://entrez.exam
> From: Michel_Dumontier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > From: David Booth
> > [ . . . ]
> > Can you explain specific cases in which you see usefully
> > dereferenceable URIs as NOT being so convenient for the discoverer?
>
> Sure, when the URI refers to a resource for which information about i
recommendations. In the Web Accessibility guidelines the tiers are
called levels A, AA and AAA to avoid stigmatizing those that don't meet
level AAA.
Specific comments below.
> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Aug 18, 2007, at 4:02 AM, Booth, David (HP Softwa
> From: Bijan Parsia
>
> On 9 Aug 2007, at 10:32, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> > [ . . . ]
> > What kind of difference does it
> > make to an agent for the following two resources.
> > a) http://404/a/b/c - returns a 404
> > b) lsid:404:a:b:c- non-dereferenciable
>
> Clearly it marks a difference
> From: Michel_Dumontier
> [ . . . ]
> In complete contrast to both of these is the case where a user
> like me, has no intent to publish any documents on the web, but
> requires a stable identifier to make statements about things.
> Sure, HTTP URIs can be used as identifiers, but why would I
> mi
[Subject was RE: IDs + 5; everybody - 10]
A belated comment, since this thread occurred while I was away on
vacation:
In
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2007Jul/0203.h
tml
> From: Jonathan Rees
> [ . . . ]
> My opinion is that if you want to avoid the locator suggestion
> From: Chimezie Ogbuji
> [ . . . ]
> Well, it's one thing to be neutral wrt schemes and another to
> make a statement about the use of certain schemes (HTTP) as
> preferred for authors who are in the business of minting URIs.
> I'll just echo Michel's sentiments about not alienating
> communities
Hi Chimezie,
I think you're partially correct, but I think you've left out an
important element that has emerged more recently in the evolution of
thought around URIs.
In the development of the Web, the allowance of non-HTTP schemes was
initially an important feature, because it enabled other
> From: Michel_Dumontier
>
> I support the use of InChI as URI. Of course, the use of such
> a URI will annoy those that want URL resolvable URIs... another
> reason to relate the URI and the resolvable URL with an
> owl:sameAs predicate.
Can you clarify? I see that an HTTP GET on
http://cb.
> From: Jonathan Rees
> [ . . . ]
> 4. Make sure everyone understands the conceptual framework, and gets a
>chance to critique JAR's approach of descriptions, documents,
>versions, access, etc.
Thanks for the meeting notes. I wish I had been able to attend, but I
was traveling.
What d
My 2 cents: If something is important, it should have a name (a URI). See the
W3C WebArch sec 2.1 "Good practice: Identify with URIs":
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-benefits
David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hp.com/go/software
> -O
> From: Alan Ruttenberg
> . . .
> 2) I think that URIs should function first as unique identifiers, and
> only if possible, as elements of user interface. . . . .
I basically agree with this, but I think it is possible to strike
balance, since humans *do* still need to look at these URIs sometime
> From: Eric Neumann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Kwan, Kathy (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [E]
>
> Kathy,
>
> Yes, we are leaning towards a URL "http"
> identifier, thus requiring no additional urn (lsid)
> resolution mechanism.
Great! And as a reminder, if a resource owner al
> From: Jonathan Rees [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Doing HTTP operations on an information resource, while abstractly
> similar to answering SPARQL queries relating to it (in either case you
> are learning something), seems to have a different feel given present
> technology. The protocol used
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> In your view, how would one find
> >> information (or represent the information needed to find
> >> information) about a non-informationresource
>
> I think parallel querying of Sparql endpoints could be an
> interesting solution. . . . .
I'm curious why you ar
I haven't been able to follow this discussion entirely, so please
forgive me if I missed something that should have been evident. In
general I like the idea of using an ontology to express URI resolution
information, but I am also partial to Xiaoshu's pleas for simplicity.
To my mind, the ideal w
> From: Xiaoshu Wang
>
> > From: David Booth
> > . . .
> > My overall comment: Yes! I believe a URI resolution ontology could
> > significantly help address these problems, while still
> > permitting URIs
> > to be based on the http scheme, thus facilitating bootstrapping and
> > minimizing ba
Re: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Documents?actio
n=AttachFile&do=get&target=getting-information.txt
My overall comment: Yes! I believe a URI resolution ontology could
significantly help address these problems, while still permitting URIs
to be based on the http scheme, thus fac
Here is the full text of the draft at
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Documents?action=AttachFi
le&do=get&target=getting-information.txt so that people can easily
comment on specific portions by hitting "reply". (But please edit your
reply to include only the portions relevant to y
A problem I have with the term "formal ontology" is that it seems
redundant: an ontology (in the computer science sense) is already formal
in the same sense as a "formal specification" or a "formal language":
http://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/ouspg/sage/glossary/
[[
Formal
Expressed in a restrict
Sean,
Great work! If these http URIs are generally used,
- Client software that is *not* aware of LSID-specific dereferencing
mechanisms can use these URIs to find useful information; and
- Client software that *is* aware of LSID-specitic dereferencing
mechanisms may choose to optim
> From: Matthias Samwald
> . . .
> 3) What current proposals about the 'resolution' of URIs do
> is trying to force four different things into a single URI:
I don't know which proposals you mean, but forcing these into the same
URI is definitely not what the TAG recommends in the WebArch[1], e
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Deputy Director for Informatics
> Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat
> Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
> Tel: +45-35321483 Mobile: +45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480
>
Donald,
For the most part, http URIs can be designed (using
specialized prefixes) to provide all the benefits of any new URI scheme or URN
sub-scheme, plus more. For example, a specialized http URI
prefix such as "http://lsid.tdwg.org?" could be functionally equivalent to the prefix
"urn:
> From: kei cheung
>
> . . .
> I agree that gene names are interesting use cases for URI/LSID. In
> addition to synonyms (different terms may be used to refer to
> the same
> concept), we need to deal with homonyms (the same term may mean
> different things). As discussed in the BioRDF call y
Wikipedia has clearly been working in the general sciences, though of
course it has its limitations. (For example, one probably would not use
a wikipedia URL as a concept identifier in a Semantic Web application,
because the definition of a term can change as fast as a user can type
in a browser.
For those interested in the merits of HTTP versus new URI schemes or
sub-schemes, please take a look at the following paper.
"Converting New URI Schemes or URN Sub-Schemes to HTTP", by David Booth.
http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/
The abstract:
[[
New URI schemes or URN sub-schemes are sometimes
42 matches
Mail list logo
