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

Jim Tivy jimt at bluestream.com
Fri Nov 9 08:36:20 PST 2012


OK

 

We use rdf:label on our intentional objects - class, property, but we have a
class annotation that designates the name property of individual.  We do not
use annotations on individuals.

 

Jim

 

From: protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu
[mailto:protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Timothy
Redmond
Sent: November-09-12 1:57 AM
To: protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] IRI uniqueification ideas

 


Yes - you have pretty much given the argument.  There are a number of
ontologies that use numeric ids and have their human readable label given by
some annotation property (often rdfs:label) value for these types of
reasons.

-Timothy

On 11/08/2012 08:33 PM, Jim Tivy wrote:

Hi Tim

 

That makes sense.

For individuals, is the word on the street to avoid IRIs with embedded names
and other possibly changing semantic information.  For example, with a name
you may find it is misspelled or not the complete name or not unique.  If it
is baked into the URI then any changes to the IRI would cause necessary
changes to assertions and other things that refer to the individual IRI - a
nightmare.  And deleting the individual causes it's death and break the
integrity of any existing assertions.

 

Jim

 

From: protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu
[mailto:protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Timothy
Redmond
Sent: November-08-12 7:32 PM
To: protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] IRI uniqueification ideas

 


The usual technique that moves in this direction is to use numeric ids.  An
example of such an id is:

                 http://purl.org/obo/owl/APO#APO_0000018


and the idea is that the next id will be #19, etc.  These ids are not
guaranteed to be unique and their non-uniqueness creates a host of problems.
I think that this format is popular because the ids are somewhat more
memorable than unique ids would be.

On the other hand, if you want your ids to be truly unique there is a
standard for this and there is an associated java implementation [1].
Protege supports a method for generating the ids of new entities based on
such unique identifiers.

-Timothy





[1] http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/UUID.html


On 11/08/2012 05:26 PM, Jim Tivy wrote:

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







_______________________________________________
protege-discussion mailing list
protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
 
Instructions for unsubscribing:
http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03

 






_______________________________________________
protege-discussion mailing list
protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
 
Instructions for unsubscribing:
http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20121109/a86e70f3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list