Please ignore my last message, it was meant as a private communication! (the vagaries of reply all)
Best Daniel Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: [email protected] > From: Daniel Schwabe <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Standard way to define URIs in ontologies for > the SW > Date: March 19, 2012 1:26:25 PM GMT-03:00 > To: Rommel Carvalho <[email protected]> > Cc: Vagner Diniz <[email protected]>, Public LOD community <[email protected]> > > Rommel, > coincidentemente, só vi sua última msg hoje, poderiamos ter conversado a > respeito em BSB! > > Observo algumas coisas > > 1) o Ontolog Forum provavelmente n é o melhor para este tipo de discussão, > que é bem comum na lista <[email protected]>. > 2) A questão que vc coloca me parece fundamental, e deveria na verdade ser > objeto de uma ação de algum órgão de governo. Alternativamente, acredito que > poderia ser um serviço prestado pelo W3C Brasil, ou melhor, pelo NIC.br, de > prover um namespace comum para os órgão de governo. Estritamente falando, > talvez fosse o SERPRO o mais indicado, mas temo que a burocracia e falta de > definição das responsabilidades e escopo de atuação lá dificulte isto. > 3) A CGU deveria fazer parte do W3C, se já não faz. Independentemente disto, > é possível participar das listas de discussão sem ser membro. Acho que > inclusive a lista do grupo de Open data Gov do W3C Veja em > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/, busque por "egov". > 4) Caos vc precise de algum material específico, posso te ajudar, dado que a > PUC é membro... mas certamente o Vagner tb pode. > 5) Vale a pena olhar como o data.gov.uk fez, pois eles seguiram uma lógica > para decidir (ie, tem um Design Rationale por trás ;-) ) > > []s > D > > > > On Mar 15, 2012, at 14:29 - 15/03/12, Rommel Carvalho wrote: > >> Hi Bob, >> >> I would be glad if you could do that (introduce me to your colleagues). That >> is the main reason I decided to contact this group before defining things on >> my own. My main goal is to actually leverage on what the community has >> already done with respect to linking data, and more specifically, to >> "Government Linked Data". >> >> Thanks, >> Rommel >> >> -- >> Dr. Rommel N. Carvalho >> Postdoctoral Research Associate >> C4I Center / GMU >> http://mason.gmu.edu/~rcarvalh >> >> >> >> 2012/3/15 Bob Schloss <[email protected]> >> Hi Rommel, >> >> There is a working group at the World Wide Web Consortium working on >> "Government Linked Data". If you want to understand more about what they >> are currently working on, I would be happy to introduce you to some >> colleagues who are participating. I think their draft specifications will >> start to be circulated in a few months (but I'm not certain about their >> timeline). >> >> There are also a lot of grass-roots efforts, some pushed by groups like >> Civic Commons , some collaborative works by universities, governments and >> the IT community (one that I happen to know about is http://DubLinked.ie for >> the governments around Dublin Ireland) , so you may be able to levarage >> practical solutions that have started to emerge around the world in the last >> few years. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Bob Schloss >> STSM; Smarter Planet Sustainability: Scalable Information Infrastructure >> IBM Thomas J Watson Research Center >> Phone: +1-914-784-6710 | Mobile: +1-914-589-0699 >> E-mail: [email protected] >> My page at IBM Research: researcher.ibm.com/person/us-rschloss >> Find me on: <Mail Attachment.jpeg> <Mail Attachment.jpeg> >> "Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody >> else has thought." - Albert Szent-Gyorgyi >> <Mail Attachment.gif> >> >> 19 Skyline Dr >> Hawthorne, NY 10532-1596 >> United States >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Rommel Carvalho <[email protected]> >> To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion >> <[email protected]> >> Date: 03/15/2012 12:59 PM >> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Standard way to define URIs in >> ontologies for the SW >> Sent by: [email protected] >> >> >> >> Thanks, Simon! This was exactly what I was looking for! It helps a lot! :-) >> >> Best, >> Rommel >> >> -- >> Dr. Rommel N. Carvalho >> Postdoctoral Research Associate >> C4I Center / GMU >> http://mason.gmu.edu/~rcarvalh >> >> >> >> 2012/3/15 Simon Spero <[email protected]> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Rommel Carvalho >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> One of the things we will address in these documents is how to define the >> URI for the different ontologies we will be creating. I was hoping you could >> point me to the right direction on where I can find information on best >> practices to define URIs for ontologies in the Semantic Web. Is there some >> kind of standard for this? >> >> The following W3 publication offesr some relevant guide-lines: >> >> Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies >> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-swbp-vocab-pub-20080828/ - W3 NOTE) >> There are also some rules of thumb - >> http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Rcygania2/RulesOfThumb#Namespace_URIs >> >> There are a few choices to be made that depend on technical and >> administrative factors. >> >> 1) The hostname part of the URI: Do you want to use PURLs (purl.org), do >> you wish to use existing domain names, or do you want to create a new domain >> to host the vocabularies? Do you want to have a central site hosting all >> vocabularies; do you want to have a central site that redirects to hosts >> managed by individual departments/agencies, etc? >> >> 2) The path name for the vocabulary: There are a couple of conventions: >> /year/month/ontology-name - example: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl >> /ontology-name/version - example http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1 >> Note that in both of the examples, the namespace contains what at first >> glance appears to be timestamp or version information; however in both of >> these cases, the ontology version has changed a great deal, but the >> namespace has remained constant. The FOAF spec notes: >> >> Much of FOAF now is considered stable. Each release of this specification >> document has an incrementally increased version number, even while the >> technical namespace ID remains fixed and includes the original value of >> "0.1". It long ago became impractical to update the namespace URI without >> causing huge disruption to both producers and consumers of FOAF data. We are >> left with the digits "0.1" in our URI. This stands as a warning to all those >> who might embed metadata in their vocabulary identifiers. >> >> >> This approach requires the semantics of existing terms in the namespace to >> remain downwards compatible. If the meaning of a term changes in a way that >> is not downwards compatible with extant usage then a new namespace is >> needed. This roughly corresponds to a new major version in a software API. >> >> Just chatting now with Dan, he now favours only adding a version id if a >> second version is needed. This seems reasonable enough, though from a human >> factors point of view, there is a danger of accidentally referring to the >> older version due to accidentally omitting the version part of the >> namespace. >> >> If a new namespace is needed, then terms that are (absolute LL) identical >> can be declared 'sameas' and 'equivalent<Foo>' in the new namespace, >> allowing for partial backwards compatibility. >> >> 3) Hash or Slash. >> >> If the vocabulary is small, then the namespace can be declared using a '#' >> after the ontology name, making term names relative. This allows the whole >> document to be fetched in a single transaction, and verified with a single >> cache check. SKOS uses a # namespace. >> >> If the vocabulary is very large, then a '/' namespace is better; only terms >> that are needed will be fetched, and only modified terms need to be >> invalidated in a cache. Since vocabulary items can be defined in documents >> other than those directly matching the namespace URI, you can include >> closely associated term definitions in individual documents to reduce >> network latency. >> >> It is possible to mix and match the approaches. >> >> Hope this helps >> >> Simon >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ >> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ >> Unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected] >> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/ >> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012 >> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ >> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ >> Unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected] >> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/ >> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012 >> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ >> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ >> Unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected] >> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/ >> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012 >> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ >
