You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@jena.apache.org by Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com> on 2013/08/07 03:00:27 UTC
best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
Hi,
The question may be somewhat out of focus of the group but since we have here a number of competent people I dared to post the question here.
Let us given an ontology O1 under development that has assigned domain "d1:". So, we have ownership of O1. For development of the O1 we find useful to use some knowledge defined in an ontology O2 with domain "d2:". Note that the O2 is an externally defined ontology not in our administration scope. Let's now assume we want to create a resource that would be an individual from the class "d2:C", where the class is defined in O2.
What should be best practice to do: "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2" or "d2:R rdf:type d2:C2"?
I believe both are conceptually correct statements but I am not sure whether the second statement is in accordance with Linked Data principles.
Thanks,
Milorad Tosic
Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
Posted by Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com>.
Thanks for pointing me to the list!
Milorad
>________________________________
> From: Olivier Rossel <ol...@gmail.com>
>To: users@jena.apache.org; Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 12:20 PM
>Subject: Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
>
>
>May be this discussion should take place in public-lod instead of here.
>cf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/
>
>
>
>On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks all for helping me out! I totally agree with you.
>>
>> But, is there a strong argument (backed by a standard, for example, or a
>> recommendation from a standard body ...) supporting this opinion that can
>> be used in argumentation?
>>
>> Milorad
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Olivier Rossel <ol...@gmail.com>
>> >To: users@jena.apache.org
>> >Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 10:47 AM
>> >Subject: Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
>> >
>> >
>> >Michale s answer can be illustrated when setting up URI derefencing.
>> >I.e when people can "access" your resource via HTTP.
>> >To achieve that, your URIs are mapped to URLs in your IT infrastructure.
>> >This is technically possible only if the namespace of your URIs maps with
>> >your domain name
>> >and website structure.
>> >So, in short: use your own namespace (and define it according to your IT
>> if
>> >you want URI dereferencing :)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Hello Milorad,
>> >>
>> >> you should not create URIs in other peoples namespaces without their
>> >> permission.
>> >>
>> >> So best practice would be "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2".
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Michael Brunnbauer
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 06:00:27PM -0700, Milorad Tosic wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > The question may be somewhat out of focus of the group but since we
>> have
>> >> here a number of competent people I dared to post the question here.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Let us given an ontology O1 under development that has assigned domain
>> >> "d1:". So, we have ownership of O1. For development of the O1 we find
>> >> useful to use some knowledge defined in an ontology O2 with domain
>> "d2:".
>> >> Note that the O2 is an externally defined ontology not in our
>> >> administration scope. Let's now assume we want to create a resource that
>> >> would be an individual from the class "d2:C", where the class is
>> defined in
>> >> O2.
>> >> >
>> >> > What should be best practice to do: "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2" or "d2:R
>> >> rdf:type d2:C2"?
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe both are conceptually correct statements but I am not sure
>> >> whether the second statement is in accordance with Linked Data
>> principles.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Milorad Tosic
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ++ Michael Brunnbauer
>> >> ++ netEstate GmbH
>> >> ++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a
>> >> ++ 81379 München
>> >> ++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
>> >> ++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
>> >> ++ E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
>> >> ++ http://www.netestate.de/
>> >> ++
>> >> ++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
>> >> ++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
>> >> ++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
>> >> ++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
Posted by Olivier Rossel <ol...@gmail.com>.
May be this discussion should take place in public-lod instead of here.
cf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks all for helping me out! I totally agree with you.
>
> But, is there a strong argument (backed by a standard, for example, or a
> recommendation from a standard body ...) supporting this opinion that can
> be used in argumentation?
>
> Milorad
>
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Olivier Rossel <ol...@gmail.com>
> >To: users@jena.apache.org
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 10:47 AM
> >Subject: Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
> >
> >
> >Michale s answer can be illustrated when setting up URI derefencing.
> >I.e when people can "access" your resource via HTTP.
> >To achieve that, your URIs are mapped to URLs in your IT infrastructure.
> >This is technically possible only if the namespace of your URIs maps with
> >your domain name
> >and website structure.
> >So, in short: use your own namespace (and define it according to your IT
> if
> >you want URI dereferencing :)
> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hello Milorad,
> >>
> >> you should not create URIs in other peoples namespaces without their
> >> permission.
> >>
> >> So best practice would be "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2".
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Michael Brunnbauer
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 06:00:27PM -0700, Milorad Tosic wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > The question may be somewhat out of focus of the group but since we
> have
> >> here a number of competent people I dared to post the question here.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Let us given an ontology O1 under development that has assigned domain
> >> "d1:". So, we have ownership of O1. For development of the O1 we find
> >> useful to use some knowledge defined in an ontology O2 with domain
> "d2:".
> >> Note that the O2 is an externally defined ontology not in our
> >> administration scope. Let's now assume we want to create a resource that
> >> would be an individual from the class "d2:C", where the class is
> defined in
> >> O2.
> >> >
> >> > What should be best practice to do: "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2" or "d2:R
> >> rdf:type d2:C2"?
> >> >
> >> > I believe both are conceptually correct statements but I am not sure
> >> whether the second statement is in accordance with Linked Data
> principles.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Milorad Tosic
> >>
> >> --
> >> ++ Michael Brunnbauer
> >> ++ netEstate GmbH
> >> ++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a
> >> ++ 81379 München
> >> ++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
> >> ++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
> >> ++ E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
> >> ++ http://www.netestate.de/
> >> ++
> >> ++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
> >> ++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
> >> ++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
> >> ++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
Posted by Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com>.
Let us consider Semantic Web and Linked Data as a conceptual references without going into full details about their meaning. Within such limited scope we can say that Semantic Web is about publishing knowledge on the Web in a machine processable way while Linked Data is about publishing data on the Web such that it would not be in collision with Semantic Web. Consequently, the concept of resource is of the paramount importance being anything identified by URI. In the case of Semantic Web, URI represents UID of an abstract concept while in the case of Linked Data it is dereferenced by means of HTTP protocol to the corresponding data item.
Now, having published something (concept/individual/data) by assigning an URI to it means nothing on its own. For example, we call our pet hamster Peach and it is definitely in collision with the common meaning of the word (hamster is not fruit). Since, if I publish something by an URI to it means nothing until somebody else starts using it. This is in compliance with the open world assumption. So, while there is no (formal) barrier to assign any valid URI to any resource it would have no meaning unless other agents may access it in a systematically manageable way.
Analogous to writing, there is no constrain that would stop me writing a novel such that every single sentence is written in a separate (uniquely identified) textual file. However, it would be very hard and almost impossible for other people to read it. So, writers usually write novels such that the whole text is contained within a single file. So, creating individuals, that is very close cognitive process to writing sentences of text, should be done in a similar way: Include/reference to all ontologies that you need for domain context representation but create all individuals as well as statements within a single domain representing a manageable dataspace. Regardless of the potentially diverse domains of included ontologies, all individuals and statements about them stay within a single dataspace. In this way, materialized dereferencing as is the case in Linked Data is easily supported as well.
Milorad
>________________________________
> From: Marco Neumann <ma...@gmail.com>
>To: users@jena.apache.org; Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 9:42 AM
>Subject: Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
>
>
>what did you learn? how do you go about the assignments of URIs to
>individuals now?
>
>
>On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that should be sufficient.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Milorad
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>> >To: users@jena.apache.org
>> >Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 10:00 PM
>> >Subject: Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
>> >
>> >
>> >On 07/08/13 10:50, Milorad Tosic wrote:
>> >> Thanks all for helping me out! I totally agree with you.
>> >>
>> >> But, is there a strong argument (backed by a standard, for example, or
>> a recommendation from a standard body ...) supporting this opinion that can
>> be used in argumentation?
>> >
>> >Maybe this will help:
>> >
>> >http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-assignment
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Milorad
>> >
>> > Andy
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>---
>Marco Neumann
>KONA
>
>
>
Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
Posted by Marco Neumann <ma...@gmail.com>.
what did you learn? how do you go about the assignments of URIs to
individuals now?
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, that should be sufficient.
>
> Thanks,
> Milorad
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
> >To: users@jena.apache.org
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 10:00 PM
> >Subject: Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
> >
> >
> >On 07/08/13 10:50, Milorad Tosic wrote:
> >> Thanks all for helping me out! I totally agree with you.
> >>
> >> But, is there a strong argument (backed by a standard, for example, or
> a recommendation from a standard body ...) supporting this opinion that can
> be used in argumentation?
> >
> >Maybe this will help:
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-assignment
> >
> >>
> >> Milorad
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
---
Marco Neumann
KONA
Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
Posted by Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com>.
Yes, that should be sufficient.
Thanks,
Milorad
>________________________________
> From: Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>To: users@jena.apache.org
>Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 10:00 PM
>Subject: Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
>
>
>On 07/08/13 10:50, Milorad Tosic wrote:
>> Thanks all for helping me out! I totally agree with you.
>>
>> But, is there a strong argument (backed by a standard, for example, or a recommendation from a standard body ...) supporting this opinion that can be used in argumentation?
>
>Maybe this will help:
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-assignment
>
>>
>> Milorad
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 07/08/13 10:50, Milorad Tosic wrote:
> Thanks all for helping me out! I totally agree with you.
>
> But, is there a strong argument (backed by a standard, for example, or a recommendation from a standard body ...) supporting this opinion that can be used in argumentation?
Maybe this will help:
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-assignment
>
> Milorad
Andy
Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
Posted by Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com>.
Thanks all for helping me out! I totally agree with you.
But, is there a strong argument (backed by a standard, for example, or a recommendation from a standard body ...) supporting this opinion that can be used in argumentation?
Milorad
>________________________________
> From: Olivier Rossel <ol...@gmail.com>
>To: users@jena.apache.org
>Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 10:47 AM
>Subject: Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
>
>
>Michale s answer can be illustrated when setting up URI derefencing.
>I.e when people can "access" your resource via HTTP.
>To achieve that, your URIs are mapped to URLs in your IT infrastructure.
>This is technically possible only if the namespace of your URIs maps with
>your domain name
>and website structure.
>So, in short: use your own namespace (and define it according to your IT if
>you want URI dereferencing :)
>
>
>
>On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Michael Brunnbauer <br...@netestate.de>wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello Milorad,
>>
>> you should not create URIs in other peoples namespaces without their
>> permission.
>>
>> So best practice would be "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2".
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael Brunnbauer
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 06:00:27PM -0700, Milorad Tosic wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > The question may be somewhat out of focus of the group but since we have
>> here a number of competent people I dared to post the question here.
>> >
>> >
>> > Let us given an ontology O1 under development that has assigned domain
>> "d1:". So, we have ownership of O1. For development of the O1 we find
>> useful to use some knowledge defined in an ontology O2 with domain "d2:".
>> Note that the O2 is an externally defined ontology not in our
>> administration scope. Let's now assume we want to create a resource that
>> would be an individual from the class "d2:C", where the class is defined in
>> O2.
>> >
>> > What should be best practice to do: "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2" or "d2:R
>> rdf:type d2:C2"?
>> >
>> > I believe both are conceptually correct statements but I am not sure
>> whether the second statement is in accordance with Linked Data principles.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Milorad Tosic
>>
>> --
>> ++ Michael Brunnbauer
>> ++ netEstate GmbH
>> ++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a
>> ++ 81379 München
>> ++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
>> ++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
>> ++ E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
>> ++ http://www.netestate.de/
>> ++
>> ++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
>> ++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
>> ++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
>> ++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
>>
>
>
Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
Posted by Olivier Rossel <ol...@gmail.com>.
Michale s answer can be illustrated when setting up URI derefencing.
I.e when people can "access" your resource via HTTP.
To achieve that, your URIs are mapped to URLs in your IT infrastructure.
This is technically possible only if the namespace of your URIs maps with
your domain name
and website structure.
So, in short: use your own namespace (and define it according to your IT if
you want URI dereferencing :)
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Michael Brunnbauer <br...@netestate.de>wrote:
>
> Hello Milorad,
>
> you should not create URIs in other peoples namespaces without their
> permission.
>
> So best practice would be "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2".
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Brunnbauer
>
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 06:00:27PM -0700, Milorad Tosic wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The question may be somewhat out of focus of the group but since we have
> here a number of competent people I dared to post the question here.
> >
> >
> > Let us given an ontology O1 under development that has assigned domain
> "d1:". So, we have ownership of O1. For development of the O1 we find
> useful to use some knowledge defined in an ontology O2 with domain "d2:".
> Note that the O2 is an externally defined ontology not in our
> administration scope. Let's now assume we want to create a resource that
> would be an individual from the class "d2:C", where the class is defined in
> O2.
> >
> > What should be best practice to do: "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2" or "d2:R
> rdf:type d2:C2"?
> >
> > I believe both are conceptually correct statements but I am not sure
> whether the second statement is in accordance with Linked Data principles.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Milorad Tosic
>
> --
> ++ Michael Brunnbauer
> ++ netEstate GmbH
> ++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a
> ++ 81379 München
> ++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
> ++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
> ++ E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
> ++ http://www.netestate.de/
> ++
> ++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
> ++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
> ++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
> ++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
>
Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals
Posted by Michael Brunnbauer <br...@netestate.de>.
Hello Milorad,
you should not create URIs in other peoples namespaces without their permission.
So best practice would be "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2".
Regards,
Michael Brunnbauer
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 06:00:27PM -0700, Milorad Tosic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The question may be somewhat out of focus of the group but since we have here a number of competent people I dared to post the question here.
>
>
> Let us given an ontology O1 under development that has assigned domain "d1:". So, we have ownership of O1. For development of the O1 we find useful to use some knowledge defined in an ontology O2 with domain "d2:". Note that the O2 is an externally defined ontology not in our administration scope. Let's now assume we want to create a resource that would be an individual from the class "d2:C", where the class is defined in O2.
>
> What should be best practice to do: "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2" or "d2:R rdf:type d2:C2"?
>
> I believe both are conceptually correct statements but I am not sure whether the second statement is in accordance with Linked Data principles.
>
> Thanks,
> Milorad Tosic
--
++ Michael Brunnbauer
++ netEstate GmbH
++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++ 81379 München
++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
++ E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
++ http://www.netestate.de/
++
++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel