Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-discussion] IRI uniqueification ideas

Bradley Shoebottom bradley.shoebottom at Innovatia.net
Fri Nov 9 05:17:18 PST 2012


Jim,

We at Innovatia have had a similar issue.

We have a adopted a IRI or filename convention that has

-Product acronym
-Topic/document type
-Random hexadecimal characters to ensure uniqueness
-Subject string that is a concatenation of the title of the document

We do not let the filename exceed 50 characters because of some CMS limitations in this area. Also illegal character's like !@#$%^&*()?- are not allowed. The last one - short dash - is important because SPARQL will not query across a short dash even though W3C standards allow you to use it as a URI/IRI. (I have had this battle with our OASIS DITA experts and the DITA community and their view is that something better than SPARQL will come along to solve this problem and they will keep their short dash, thank you very much!)

We took this approach so that authors would feel confident they had the correct files/results to a query as opposed to some seemingly random 16 character number like Nortel used to do.

If you are doing DITA sub topic reuse and need unique IRIs, ie at the paragraph level, then the unique identifiers ones provided by XMetal are sufficient so long as the content in your documentation set does not exceed 1000 pages. Over that and we found we needed to have more than p_1234abcdef5678gh to help authors distinguish between many paragraphs starting with the p character. Part of the issues is the difficulty in assigning metadata to a reusable topic. Key refs and subject schema will help, but so far only Oxygen offers decent Subject schema support and I do not know of any DITA CMS capable of taking advantage of the subject Schema feature to help sort through content.


Bradley Shoebottom
Senior Information Architect - Research and Product Development
Phone: (506) 674-5439   |   Toll-Free: (800) 363-3358
Skype: bradley.shoebottom
Email: bradley.shoebottom at innovatia.net<mailto:bradley.shoebottom at innovatia.net>
[Description: cid:image001.png at 01CD5EA2.5A7F56A0]<http://www.innovatia.net/>
www.innovatia.net<http://www.innovatia.net/>

From: protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Tivy
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:26 PM
To: Protege List Server
Subject: [protege-discussion] IRI uniqueification ideas

Hello

This is not a direct Protege question but involves IRIs. I have alot of individual documents that I wish to track as Individuals in OWL.  At first I thought I could generate unique IRIs with meaningful names embedded in the IRI.  Now I am thinking I want to generate unique numbers programmatically to accomplish the need for unique IRIs and to retain the ability to change the name of the Individual without deleting and adding it again.  There is  GUI to add these individuals so I can generate a next integer Id in the GUI code.

I was curious, however, what people on this group consider best practice for this problem of uniqifying IRIs and avoiding the embedding of possibly changing semantic information in those IRIs.
All the examples seem to show IRIs with cute names, like .../John and ../Mary.  My individuals will also have Name and Description properties, so I will recognize them in the GUI by their name and description properties.

cheers
Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20121109/74e64e15/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5910 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20121109/74e64e15/attachment.png>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list