Pat, see my responses inline below.
On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2011, at 11:24 PM, Chime Ogbuji wrote:
> > The Relations Ontology is very central to many of the recently developed
> > biomedical ontologies and (speaking only for myself - since is the realm
Reposting to the list:
> >>> Honestly, I read this stuff and I'm thinking that you aren't listening
> >>> to what you are saying and applying even a minimal amount of critical
> >>> analysis to relate working with RDF to any other kind of skilled
> >>> labor.
> >>
> >> Most skilled workers want t
I ran across this @lamebook, and I couldn't help but draw a parallel to our
conversation :
http://www.lamebook.com/meet-shameful/
in good fun ;)
m.
Hi,
Il giorno 22/giu/2011, alle ore 06.13, Pat Hayes ha scritto:
>
>> (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
>> ac
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
