[Crm-sig] Issue: Solution for Dualism of E41 Appellation and rdfs:label

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Sep 11 22:02:59 EEST 2018


Dear All,

Firstly, apologies, the RDF was wrong, it was intended to be P1 is 
superproperty of rdfs:label.

Semantically, the range of rdfs:label, when used, is ontologically an 
Appellation in the sense of the CRM.

I agree with George, that all RDF nodes should have a human readable 
label. They name the thing, even if it is a technical node.
I would find it confusing to say, labels are not to be queried, only to 
be read, and the "real" names must have a URI,
regardless weather I have more to say about it.

I am really not a fan of punning, we definitely forbid it in the CRM.

The point with Appellations is that some, the simple ones, can directly 
be represented in the machine, or be outside. The solution to assign a 
URI in all cases, and then a value or label, does not make the world 
easier. It is extremely bad performance. We talk here about 
implementation, not about ontology.
You get simply a useless explosion of the graph for a purpose of 
theoretic purity.

Those claiming confusing should be more precise. Has someone looked at 
query benchmarks? Has someone looked at graphical representations of RDF 
graphs. Do they really look better?

So either we either ignore the issue, and write queries that collect 
names either via P1, URI and a value/label, or via a label, because this 
is where names appear in RDF, we make no punning, but our queries 
implement exactly this meaning. So, we are not better, but do as if we 
wouldn't know.

Or, we describe the fact by punning, have one superproperty for all 
cases, which we can query, and stop thereby the discussion if labels are 
allowed or not, and how they relate to appellations. The punning comes 
in, because the range of the superproperty must comprise the ranges of 
the subproperties. We can play a bit more, make the punning with a 
superproperty of P1, and have both P1 and rdfs:label subproperties of 
it, if this is preferred.
The solution I describe is just a logical representation of the 
situation, not creating a different situation. It just says that names 
can be complex objects or simple literals.

The problem is, that the RDF literals do have meaning beyond being 
symbol sequences.

The punning does not introduce the problem. With or without, the queries 
have to cope with names in either form.
This holds similarly for space primitives and large geometry files, for 
short texts and equivalent files etc.

Opinions?

Best

Martin


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
  Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
                                                              |
                Center for Cultural Informatics               |
                Information Systems Laboratory                |
                 Institute of Computer Science                |
    Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
                                                              |
                N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,             |
                 GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece               |
                                                              |
              Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl           |
--------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list