SV: SV: SV: FW: [plcs-dex] Unique constraints -> identification and versioning

[<mats.nilsson@fmv.se>]

Kind of what I suggested in the last of my examples then... ;o) Good we agree!

                  -------------------------------------
<class>        -> Class id: RD039405951 
                  Label: BEA serial sumber (en)
           
                  Descriptive text (en);
"is a"         -> a 
<superclass>   -> <RD039405950>
<..features..> -> applied to BEA assets according to BEA rules.
                  -------------------------------------

Regards,
  Mats



-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: David Price [mailto:david.price@eurostep.com] 
Skickat: den 20 december 2006 16:48
Till: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: FW: [plcs-dex] Unique constraints -> identification and versioning

Sean makes a very good point. There's a useful convention for defining classes 
in an ontology used by some of the Oil and Gas folks that makes Sean's 
comments explicit:

A <class> is a <superclass> that <distinguishing features of this particular 
subclass>.

so in my example you'd have:

A SerialNumber is an IdentificationCode that is one of a series assigned for 
identification which varies from its successor or predecessor by a fixed 
discrete integer value.

I thought this was an excellent convention.

Cheers,
David

On Wednesday 20 December 2006 11:58, Barker, Sean (UK) wrote:
> Just to add a further strand to this discussion, Aristotle noted that
> definition goes by genus and species, that is, that a definition identifies
> what class of thing you are defining (genus), and how it differs from other
> things in that class (species). This has two implications.
>
> Firstly, any single term in a taxonomy is determined by its context, that
> is, the full path from the root concept down to the term. In practice,
> humans infer the path directly from context, and homonyms do not cause any
> particular linguistic community any great problems (although it is a
> problem between different communities such as the UK and the US). In an OWL
> ontology, this will only cause problems if the reference to the term is
> ambiguous because the reference does not define the full context. (PS Tank
> is a particularly bad example to choose for homonyms - the term was
> originally a cover word from the 1914-18 war to fool the Germans that water
> tanks not AFVs were being delivered to the front line.)
>
> Secondly, and embarrassingly obviously, the most important part of a
> classification is the classification criteria, that is, the (real world)
> criteria that one uses to decide whether what is falling on my head is fine
> rain, drizzle, mist, rain, spitting, heavy rain, a downpour, cats and dogs
> or sleet. The concepts are not "out there" waiting to be written down, but
> essentially an arbitrary choice of how many terms are needed to divide up
> the concept space and where the term boundaries are.  The term "essentially
> arbitrary" implies that we may choose to make different choices. In
> practice, the choices are based on the "forms of life" that we need to
> distinguish - in industrial terms, the processes. When, as you were going
> out of the door, your mother shouted at you "its raining", this was not a
> statement about the amount of water falling from the sky, but an injunction
> to put a coat on.
>
> The idea that concepts are "out there" has been very influential (since at
> least Plato's "Republic"), but I suspect is a short cut we use in our
> thinking. In practice, the use of a term invokes many connotations -
> implied classifications and associations - which is why terminology debates
> are so confrontational and tediously long winded as these are teased out.
> My biggest concern in this whole discussion is that most of the definitions
> are being written using this "out there" thinking, rather than being
> explicit on when to use one term or when to use another in the same class.
> The danger is that we will produce a standard in geek speak - it works for
> the technologist, but not for the user.
>
> I am now going on holiday until the new year, so merry Christmas and a
> happy new year.
>
>
> Sean Barker
> 0117 302 8184
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mats.nilsson@fmv.se [mailto:mats.nilsson@fmv.se]
> Sent: 20 December 2006 08:43
> To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: SV: SV: SV: FW: [plcs-dex] Unique constraints -> identification
> and versioning
>
>                *** WARNING ***
>
> This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external
> partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this
> message.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> (See P.S. statement regarding the attachment and my approach to this
> discussion) (I've copied the section from David answer below on which I'd
> like to comment on)
>
> >  I understand the question now. From what I've seen on the Semantic
> > Web, the  best practice is to use a (somewhat) human-interpretable
> > name for the  identifiers of classes in an ontology (within the
> > limitations of what you can  use in a URL or URI).  I agree that the
> > use of rdfs:label is the proper way  to specify the "name" of the class
> > for use in browsers and GUI applications. However, I don't see any
> > advantage in not following the Semantic Web practices. I've never really
> > understood why anyone would want classes with  ids like rd0049404 when
> > they can have SerialNumber.
>
> 1. I'm not sure that the "Semantic Web best practice" is something we
> should pay to much attenention to, because imho PLCS Reference Data and
> Semantic Web ontologies are not that closely related, even though we use
> the same XML application (i.e. OWL) for the representation.
>
> 2. There will sooner or later be a case when homonyms appear in the same
> ontology. For now I have the two examples 'Tank' (container for liquid -or-
> combat vehicle) and 'Stone' (a unit of mesure -or- a primitive tool for
> emergency repairs). Both these examples are homoonyms likely to appear in
> the same domain (even though the 'Stone' example is a bit far-fetched...).
> In this case there still has to be a 'Stone(tool)'/'Stone(unit)' notation
> in order to separate them. A "meaninless" id string would bo more
> efficient.
>
> 3. You (David) did not comment on the real-world (...FMV...) fact that more
> than one word (synonyms) exists as "labels" for the same class. Which one
> should be used for the id? The use of the OWL "same_as" construct with
> separate classes (with identical definitions) is to me a more complicated
> way then using 'rdf:label' for the words and a "meaninless" id string for
> the class as a whole.
>
> 4. In the "interoperability" or "multilingual" oriented world there could
> also be a reason to keep the 'rdf:ID'='external_class.id' as a "meaninless"
> id string, in order to allow "labels" in different languages and not beeing
> forced to use an English word as the identifier... Why not adopt (what I
> think is) the eOTD approach. What they do and what we do are quite similar
> when it comes to "concept management" (where
> concept=id+label(s)+definition). Their "Core Model" (and perhaps the "FMV
> concept management information model"... (attached)) might be something to
> take a look at.
>
> I'm glad we got the discussion started! I hope more will join in...
> Reference Data is a key aspect to PLCS which in my opinion still is a bit
> too loosely defined.
>
> Regards,
>   Mats
>
> P.S.
>   The attached "FMV concept management information model" is still at a
> draft level (and has yet no descriptive text). Its purpose is to be the
> base for the definition of an XML based format for the representation of
> terminology used within FMV (and in the long run also for the Swedish armed
> forces). A project for addressing "concept management" will start at FMV in
> january with me as the projet leader.
>
> In order to be able to classify PLCS data correctly, the classifications
> should be based on a defined terminilogy. FMV doesn't have that today. In
> order for PLCS to work - this must be established! The aim of the project
> is first to create an infrastructure (data format, applications, processes,
> information/education and organisation), and then to launch the
> organisation and the work of creating a defined terminology. The
> infrastructure section of the project should be completed before summer! My
> ambition is, as far as it is possible, to use OWL in the same way as the
> OASIS PLCS TC specifies its use (something we'll soon have to agree on and
> do...) for our (FMV) terminology data format.
>
> This might explain some of my opinions expressed above and earlier...
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: David Price [mailto:david.price@eurostep.com]
> Skickat: den 19 december 2006 17:30
> Till: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
> Ämne: Re: SV: SV: FW: [plcs-dex] Unique constraints -> identification and
> versioning
>
> Hi Mats, See below for two replies. Cheers, David
>
> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 09:38, mats.nilsson@fmv.se wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > This is one of your examples of a "class.id URI";
> >
> > >> urn:iso:std:iso:ts:10303:-1017:ed-1:tech-taxonomy:Part
> >
> > If I understand you correctly, you suggests to include both the URI
> > for the RDL ("urn:iso:std:iso:ts:10303:-1017:ed-1:tech-taxonomy") as
> > well as the class identifier ("Part") in the 'external_class.id' (the
> > 'id' attribute in the 'external_class' entity).
> >
> > I thought (see the last of my three slides)
> > 'external_class_library.id' was going to be used for the URI of the
> > RDL, and that the identifier within the RDL (i.e. 'external_class.id')
> > only should contain the actual "classification" or "term" identifier, in
> > your example "Part".
>
> I don't think that works because of the other issues I mentioned (i.e.
> there are multiple ontologies involved and one ontology has to be
> identified as the context ontology). The context ontology is the most
> organization-specific ontology that uses the more general and standard
> ontologies. External_class_library is really the only entity type in PLCS
> that makes sense for that requirement and so I think there should be one
> instance of it that all the External_class entity instances point to
> (actually I don't think it's a big problem if there are multiple instances
> of External_class_library as long as they all refer to the same URI. So, if
> you've followed and agreed with the logic of requiring a context ontology
> then I think it's clear that the External_class.id needs to be the full
> URI.
>
> For what it's worth, I think people have been assuming that
> "urn:oasis:plcs" was "the reference data library", when in fact in
> real-world usage that is unlikely to be the case. The RDL that is the
> context for an exchange is actually the ontology developed by the using
> organization with its extensions to the PLCS standard classes which is
> imported in read-only mode. Because of the flexibility enabled by the use
> of the OWL language, it's important to have that context ontology named in
> the exchange file. If you look at some of the OWL APIs you'll see that they
> often force you to supply an ontology when you'd think only a class is
> required as input. That's because the same class can have different
> subclasses *and* superclasses (not to mention properties) depending on how
> it is extended in using ontologies.
>
> > Please help me understand if I've got things wrong! If someone else
> > has an opinion, please help David help me...
> >
> >
> > Now over to your question David. In my not so organized world (I call
> > it
> > FMV...) people use more than one term for the same concept
> > (concept=class). OWL has the 'rdfs:label' element, which makes it
> > possible to assign more than one term for each class. This is useful for
> > me because the guys who drive helocopters and those who drive boats often
> > have
> > different terminology, and I can use this functionality to make them
> > understand each other and the data they send. There is also this need to
> > be "interoperable" within e.g. the EU Battle Groups or NATO joint
> > operations, and then we swedes meet people that uses the word "lubricate"
> > for what we call "smörja"...
> >
> > To accompish this I'd like to use a "meaningless" identifier for the
> > 'external_class.id' field, e.g. "rd000453" (or with versioning
> > "rd000453v1"), and then use the 'external_class.name' field for the
> > readable classification (i.e. one of the available 'rdfs:label's in
> > the RDL/OWL-file).
> >
> > This was what I meant by the question;
> >
> > >> David: How do you suggest the label used for classification should
> > >> be identified in case there are multiple labels for the same
> > >> class/RD?
> >
> > If I have both "lubricate" and "smörja" in the same class (that is a
> > subclass of 'activity'/'task') with some unique id, I need to specify
> > which one is used.
> >
> > Clearer? Or don't you see this scenario with synonyms and multiple
> > languages (used for the same class/concept)?
>
> I understand the question now. From what I've seen on the Semantic Web, the
> best practice is to use a (somewhat) human-interpretable name for the
> identifiers of classes in an ontology (within the limitations of what you
> can use in a URL or URI).  I agree that the use of rdfs:label is the proper
> way to specify the "name" of the class for use in browsers and GUI
> applications. However, I don't see any advantage in not following the
> Semantic Web practices. I've never really understood why anyone would want
> classes with ids like rd0049404 when they can have SerialNumber. The only
> rationale I've heard that made any sense to me was related to handling the
> uniqueness of ids but since we're engineering the reference data I don't
> think the cost in human understandability is outweighed by the small
> benefit of slightly easier uniqueness. That said, I also think that the
> PLCS RD should be broken up into sub-ontologies on a domain-by-domain basis
> for manageability, subsetting and to help with the overloading of terms.
>
> All that said, I'm not sure that the External_class.name is really useful
> for transfering rdfs:label values. I'm not sure of the business need for
> that for a start. If the External_class.id is the full URI then that's
> sufficient for an application to process. If for some reason the rdfs:label
> is needed then I think name_assignment is the only way to handle the fact
> that a class may have multiple rdfs:label values for different languages.
> However, it seems to me it's better to keep all the labels in the ontology
> itself rather than duplicating them in the exchange file.
>
> > Regards,
> >   Mats
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> > Från: David Price [mailto:david.price@eurostep.com]
> > Skickat: den 18 december 2006 18:05
> > Till: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Ämne: Re: SV: FW: [plcs-dex] Unique constraints -> identification and
> > versioning
> >
> > Hi Mats, a few replies follow (although I'm confused by one question.
> >
> > On Monday 18 December 2006 07:51, mats.nilsson@fmv.se wrote:
> > > Questions below...
> > > Happy for opinions!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >   Mats
> > >
> > > >> David: Could you please give an example of what an (external)
> > > >> class.id URI could look like?
> >
> > It would be a URN or a URL depending on what organization defines it
> > the class and the approach they happen to have adopted. It would be
> > the compete URI for the class though it's technically only the
> > identifier and so may not be sufficient for location (e.g. if it's a
> > URN then some other means would have to be established for an
> > application/user to find more info about the class ... for example, an
> > organization might have to buy an ISO standard). Examples could be:
> >
> > urn:iso:std:iso:ts:10303:-1017:ed-1:tech-taxonomy:Part
> >
> > http://schema.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1/ParameterDirectionKind
> >
> > http://www.madeupdod.mil/ActivityOntology#Training
> >
> > > >> David: How do you suggest the label used for classification
> > > >> should be identified in case there are multiple labels for the
> > > >> same class/RD?
> >
> > I don't understand what "the label used for classification" means. Can
> > you rephrase the question or explain that phrase?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David
>
> --
> Mobile +44 7788 561308
> UK +44 2072217307
> Skype +1 336 283 0606
>
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************

-- 
Mobile +44 7788 561308
UK +44 2072217307
Skype +1 336 283 0606