View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:54 pm



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Which namespace(s) should exist for Entity Data Types? 

Do we need to split up Entity Data Types in dm and rdl?
dm: only one namespace for entities, a separate dm: 86%   86%   [ 6 ]
dm: + rdl: classes for entities exist both in dm: and rdl: namespaces. 0%   0%   [ 0 ]
rdl: entities are the classes in the top of the rdl taxonomy, there is no dm: 0%   0%   [ 0 ]
Another solution (explained in a reply) 14%   14%   [ 1 ]
No vote. 0%   0%   [ 0 ]
Total votes : 7

 Which namespace(s) should exist for Entity Data Types? 
Author Message

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 282
Location: Moscow, Russia
Onno,

By "dm: namespace for JORD" I just mean that in JORD triples 201 types are identified in http://rds.posccaesar.org/2008/02/OWL/ISO-15926-2_2003#

But I'm not thinking in terms of RDL's here. Here I'm thinking more in terms of Semantic Web (probable unexpected from me ;) )

There are resources representing 201 EXPRESS types. Each may have many URIs, but only two should be used in my opinion (in http://rds.posccaesar.org/2008/02/OWL/ISO-15926-2_2003# and http://standards.iso.org/iso/ts/15926/- ... ata-model# namespaces). In the context of JORD or any other library or data source these resources are referenced as objects in rdf:type predicates.

There is no need for them to "be" anywhere in RDL or on endpoint. They are prebuilt in our .15926 Editor, for example.

There can be many places where some useful facts are recorded for these resources, here are some of these places:

http://rds.posccaesar.org/2008/02/OWL/ISO-15926-2_2003
http://rds.posccaesar.org/2008/07/OWL/I ... nnotations
http://rds.posccaesar.org/2008/07/OWL/I ... Membership
http://rds.posccaesar.org/2008/07/OWL/I ... Candidates

You can import this fact sets in other ontologies, and there is no way to import an endpoint anywhere, as far as I know.

Projects like OWL 2 can bring us more useful facts, representing more subtle meanings of Part 2 English text (for example).

This is an approach, as far as I understand, proclaimed also for template model and proto and initial template set in Part 8:

Quote:
The dm, p7tm, p7tpl and meta are files and not SPARQL endpoints. This is because given that these declarations
are immutable, it can be assumed these files will be locally cached by implementing systems. These files are present on the
CD-ROM of this part of ISO 15926.


In what sense


Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:57 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:14 pm
Posts: 189
I voted for "dm: only one namespace for entities, a separate dm:"

Because (in case of the Activity example) dm:Activity and rdl:Activity are actually the same thing.

That there are classes in the RDL representing Entity Data Types was something put in there in the time that the RDL was a stand-alone database.

In my opinion now that the RDL becomes a federated data set, ownership of Entity Data Types belongs to the dm: namespace only.


Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:09 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:43 pm
Posts: 76
I agree with "dm only". IMHO, the RDL punning just causes unnecessary confusion.

I have not seen any mention of the existing IDS-ADI dm: URI's, e.g. http://dm.rdlfacade.org/data#Activity. We have been using these for the last several years. They will not resolve after rdlfacade.org is shut down, but as Onno says in another thread, a namespace does not need to be resolvable.

I don't know if or why there is a need to create another set of URI's for the same purpose, but regardless the dm.rdlfacade.org URI's must remain for compatibility.


Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 282
Location: Moscow, Russia
Darius, there is no need to create another set of dm: URI's, it already exists in http://rds.posccaesar.org/2008/02/OWL/ISO-15926-2_2003# namespace. The reason is quite simple - after the RDS/WIP shutdown the only remaining RDL will be using this set.

Compatibility should be preserved, of course.

I'm afraid that voting on short namespace names viewtopic.php?f=3&t=62 will bring us the fourth dm: namespace :(


Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:40 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:14 pm
Posts: 189
vvagr wrote:
I'm afraid that voting on short namespace names viewtopic.php?f=3&t=62 will bring us the fourth dm: namespace :(


Yes, but this poll is a perfect example that if we reason things out, we arrive at other decisions as what the standards authors had decided before, in isolation.


Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:10 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:39 pm
Posts: 16
Vote Option: dm: only one namespace for entities, a separate dm:
Justification:
At my point of view, we need a separate dm: that will be namespaces of the entities, because:

1- The nature of the elements of dm: are different from the rdl:
2 - If we merge dm: and rdl: new users of the standard may lose the perception of an ontology
from which all RDL concepts derive. The entities, which for all implementation purposes are OWL classes,
have their semantic described in a discrete piece of documentation - part 2. Merging dm with rdl may prevent a structured approach to understand ISO15926 reference data.


Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:34 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.