Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On 4/9/13 1:25 PM, Michel Dumontier wrote: And the same can be said for teaching people how to construct *useful* ontologies (in OWL or any other language for that matter). If the principles are simple and coherent, then the execution will be straightforward and effective. Yes! No problem wit

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

And the same can be said for teaching people how to construct *useful* ontologies (in OWL or any other language for that matter). If the principles are simple and coherent, then the execution will be straightforward and effective. m. On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 4

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On 2013-04-09, at 12:40 PM, phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk (Phillip Lord) wrote: > RDF is nice. It's useful. It will remain useful, at least if people are > allowed to use it without being told that they are doing it all wrong. Completely out of context: I second that notion. I rather go throug

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On 4/9/13 12:40 PM, Phillip Lord wrote: Kingsley Idehen writes: On 4/9/13 11:31 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: Compare all you like. RDF is just another technology; it's not going to let me do anything that I cannot do in another way. So you are questioning its unique selling points, I assume? No.

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

Kingsley Idehen writes: > On 4/9/13 11:31 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: >> Compare all you like. RDF is just another technology; it's not going to >> let me do anything that I cannot do in another way. > So you are questioning its unique selling points, I assume? No. I don't care. I just care whether

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On 4/9/13 11:31 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: Compare all you like. RDF is just another technology; it's not going to let me do anything that I cannot do in another way. So you are questioning its unique selling points, I assume? If so, can you point us to a technology that addresses the issue of grou

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

p.l...@newcastle.ac.uk] >> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:53 AM >> To: Oliver Ruebenacker >> Cc: David Booth; Pat Hayes; Peter Ansell; Alan Ruttenberg; > public-semweb- >> lifesci >> Subject: Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance? >> >> >> And it is

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

for 'data' >> >> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/12/487 and >> http://xpdb.nist.gov/chemblast/pdb.pl and >> http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v9/n7/abs/nmeth.2084.html >> >> T N Bhat >> >> -Original Message- >> From

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

Oliver Ruebenacker writes: > Hello Philip, Phillip:-) > Apparently, you are confusing two different cases. I talked about the > same reference meaning two different things. You are talking about > different references talking about the same thing. No. dc:creator means many different things.

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Apr 8, 2013, at 7:07 AM, David Booth wrote: > Hi Pat, > > On 04/04/2013 02:03 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: >> >> On Apr 3, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Peter Ansell wrote: >> >>> On 4 April 2013 11:58, David Booth wrote: On >>> 04/02/2013 05:02 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: On Tuesday, April 2, >>> 2013, David

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

Hi Rich, On 04/08/2013 02:08 PM, Rich Cooper wrote: Dear David, You wrote: 1. Owen's URI definition will always be ambiguous. There will always exist a property p such that neither p nor its negation are entailed by the URI definition. While true, this leaves out the subjectiv

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

Hi Oliver, On 04/08/2013 11:55 AM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote: Hello David, all, What I hear you saying is primarily that: 1. It is possible to have sets of assertions such that each set is consistent, but the union is contradictory. Yes, even with all parties acting intelligently

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Michel Dumontier < > michel.dumont...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Alan Ruttenberg > > wrote: >> >>> Nicely pointed out, TN. >>> >>> Thinking about "metadata" as some o

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Michel Dumontier wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Alan Ruttenberg > wrote: > >> Nicely pointed out, TN. >> >> Thinking about "metadata" as some other category of data is usually a bad >> sign. I've often found it to mean, in practice, "data I care le

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > Nicely pointed out, TN. > > Thinking about "metadata" as some other category of data is usually a bad > sign. I've often found it to mean, in practice, "data I care less about". > > Phil, to make the case that RDF helps here, we would want t

RE: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

3 AM > To: Oliver Ruebenacker > Cc: David Booth; Pat Hayes; Peter Ansell; Alan Ruttenberg; public-semweb- > lifesci > Subject: Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance? > > > And it is this bit -- "before we can do anything useful" that is utterly > wrong. > > R

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

meth/journal/v9/n7/abs/nmeth.2084.html > > T N Bhat > > -Original Message- > From: Phillip Lord [mailto:phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk] > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 12:53 PM > To: Oliver Ruebenacker > Cc: David Booth; Pat Hayes; Peter Ansell; Alan Ruttenberg; > publi

RE: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

.l...@newcastle.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 12:53 PM To: Oliver Ruebenacker Cc: David Booth; Pat Hayes; Peter Ansell; Alan Ruttenberg; public-semweb-lifesci Subject: Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance? And it is this bit -- "before we can do anything useful" that is utterly w

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

Hello Philip, Apparently, you are confusing two different cases. I talked about the same reference meaning two different things. You are talking about different references talking about the same thing. Confusion is the enemy of understanding. Take care Oliver On Mon, Apr 8, 2

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

And it is this bit -- "before we can do anything useful" that is utterly wrong. Recently I have spent a lot of time look at Dublin Core creator fields. You could not believe how many different ways they are used. String literals ("Phillip Lord"), last-first ("Lord, Phillip"), with abbrevs ("P. L

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

Hello David, all, What I hear you saying is primarily that: 1. It is possible to have sets of assertions such that each set is consistent, but the union is contradictory. 2. If I don't know the meaning of these assertions, I can't prove that they are unjustified. That's pretty obvio

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

Hi Pat, On 04/04/2013 02:03 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: On Apr 3, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Peter Ansell wrote: On 4 April 2013 11:58, David Booth wrote: On 04/02/2013 05:02 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, David Booth wrote: On 03/27/2013 10:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: On Mar 27, 2013, at

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On 4/4/13 9:38 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 4/4/13 1:43 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: Dropping Jim from cc in deference to him finishing his defense. On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:58 PM, David Booth > wrote: On 04/02/2013 05:02 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: On Tue

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On 4/4/13 1:43 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: Dropping Jim from cc in deference to him finishing his defense. On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:58 PM, David Booth > wrote: On 04/02/2013 05:02 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, David Booth wrote:

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

David Booth writes: > Maybe someone can see a way to avoid this dilemma. Maybe > someone can figure out a way to distinguish between the > "essential" properties that serve to identify a resource, and > other "inessential" properties that the resource might have. > If so, and the number of "essen

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Apr 3, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Peter Ansell wrote: > On 4 April 2013 11:58, David Booth wrote: > On 04/02/2013 05:02 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, David Booth wrote: > On 03/27/2013 10:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:32 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: >

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

Dropping Jim from cc in deference to him finishing his defense. On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:58 PM, David Booth wrote: > On 04/02/2013 05:02 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, David Booth wrote: >> On 03/27/2013 10:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >> On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On 4 April 2013 11:58, David Booth wrote: > On 04/02/2013 05:02 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, David Booth wrote: >> On 03/27/2013 10:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >> On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:32 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: >> >> If only owl:sameAs were used

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On 04/02/2013 05:02 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, David Booth wrote: On 03/27/2013 10:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:32 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: If only owl:sameAs were used correctly... Well, I agree that is a problem, but d

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, David Booth wrote: > On 03/27/2013 10:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > >> On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:32 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: >> >>> If only owl:sameAs were used correctly... >>> >> >> Well, I agree that is a problem, but don't draw the conclusion that >> there is something wrong

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On 03/27/2013 10:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:32 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: If only owl:sameAs were used correctly... Well, I agree that is a problem, but don't draw the conclusion that there is something wrong with sameAs, just because people keep using it wrong. Agreed. And

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

When someone feels motivated, it would be great to have this thread summarized (into a paper?) Great to see the discussion. I've only looked at a small fraction of the email messages that were posted, so I may have missed this, was there any mention of tools that would pick up potential proble

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Michael Erdmann wrote: > On 28.03.2013 06:18, Jeremy J Carroll wrote: > > I rather liked the GOTO/owl:sameAs presentation … > and I am not sure that the problem can be explained away as modeling errors. > To me it does seem that there is a case to answer … modelin

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On 28.03.2013 06:18, Jeremy J Carroll wrote: I rather liked the GOTO/owl:sameAs presentation … and I am not sure that the problem can be explained away as modeling errors. To me it does seem that there is a case to answer … modeling is necessarily approximate and it is not realistic to expect e

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > I guess your analogy to GOTO put my back up a little. I rather liked the GOTO/owl:sameAs presentation … and I am not sure that the problem can be explained away as modeling errors. To me it does seem that there is a case to answer … modeling is

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > Well, I agree that is a problem, but don't draw the conclusion that there > is something wrong with sameAs, just because people keep using it wrong. I > guess your analogy to GOTO put my back up a little. > The analogy to GOTO was pretty apt,

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:32 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: > (Sorry about the empty reply to myself) > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > That "option" is already available, if you use owl:sameAs correctly (and do > not confuse i

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

(Sorry about the empty reply to myself) On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > >> That "option" is already available, if you use owl:sameAs correctly (and >> do not confuse information about some thing with meta-information abo

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > >> That "option" is already available, if you use owl:sameAs correctly (and >> do not confuse information about some thing with meta-information about >> that information. The meta-informat

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > That "option" is already available, if you use owl:sameAs correctly (and > do not confuse information about some thing with meta-information about > that information. The meta-information is not about the thing. > If only owl:sameAs were used c

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Rafael Richards wrote: > This has been a very prolific thread, but did we discuss provenance? > > A slideshare on owl:sameAs - Harmful to Provenance is here: > > http://www.slideshare.net/jpmccusker/owlsameas-considered-harmful-to-provenance > > Presentation Abst

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

PROV is now a Proposed Recommendation, which means the model has been frozen for quite some time. It is also potentially very lightweight, you don't have to use all of it to gain benefits from it. Simple derivation graphs can be composed using prov:wasDerivedFrom, and there are many properties, suc

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

So I assume that you feel that PROV is in a state that you can start building conforming tools. SInce I'm the sole developer of my NLP system, I just don't have the time to devote to something as big and "heavy" as PROV. But I'm happy to see the work going on. Somewhere down the road I will have

RE: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

2:43 PM To: Bob Futrelle Cc: Rafael Richards; Oliver Ruebenacker; David Booth; Subject: Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance? Which is why PROV exists. Now we have a floor to work from. I've already integrated it into a number of projects. Jim On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:39 P

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

Which is why PROV exists. Now we have a floor to work from. I've already integrated it into a number of projects. Jim On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bob Futrelle wrote: > Provenance techniques/tools/systems are nowhere near what they could to be. > Each provenance system or "standard" ends up

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

Provenance techniques/tools/systems are nowhere near what they could to be. Each provenance system or "standard" ends up being unique so the information is not inter-operative. One example among the many: http://openprovenance.org/ These days, I'm more focused on NLP than serious knowledge system

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

The short answer: not anymore, if you use prov:alternateOf and prov:specializationOf instead. Jim On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Rafael Richards wrote: > This has been a very prolific thread, but did we discuss provenance? > > A slideshare on owl:sameAs - Harmful to Provenance is here: > >

Re: owl:sameAs - Harmful to provenance?

This has been a very prolific thread, but did we discuss provenance? A slideshare on owl:sameAs - Harmful to Provenance is here: http://www.slideshare.net/jpmccusker/owlsameas-considered-harmful-to-provenance Presentation Abstract: GOTO was once a standard operation in most computer programming