As I read Johns mail it occurred to me that we always assume a Western
cultured logic. I am sure that Chinese names would be very different based
on my limited understanding of the Chinese language and culture. The same
must be true for other cultures. In some cases, "cultural name
interoperability" would be quite straightforward but in many others the
meaning will be lost just as it is the case for literal language
translations.
I don't expect anyone to be able to do anything about this but I thought it
was interesting to comment on this. Any thoughts?
Regards
Craig
2008/4/14 John Graybeal <graybeal at mbari.org>:
> I apologize in advance for a post that may be vague. It is my best attempt
> to bring out my needs as a practical developer/designer/user.
>
> With *any* community vocabulary, or vocabulary mapping process, that I
> have worked with or known so far (not an immense number of either), I have
> had a problem. This difficulty is that when we say what something IS, or
> what it EQUALS (is the sameAs), we have been largely silent about the range
> of characteristics we are (and are not) addressing.
>
> This shows up in CF standard names. On the one hand, have they hit the
> sweet spot of usability, with the right level of detail in the standard name
> to satisfy most users? On the other hand, can they survive transition to an
> even wider user community, which will want to factor in dozens of different
> characteristics and priorities?
>
> It seems impossible to create a name that on its own is sufficient for
> most users to determine comparability of variables. At most the standard
> name seems to be a particularly well constructed and detailed discovery
> mechanism, but not designed to serve entirely automated algorithms all by
> itself. (For example, lacking ontological relations between CF terms, I
> don't know how to reliable determine their relationships algorithmically.)
>
> Do we think the CF standard name is for more than detailed discovery? If
> not, are we already trying to make it more than that, or do we want to try
> to do that?
>
> Insofar as CF is perhaps the most well constructed set of such low-level
> terms, I wonder if they should help drive the process of moving from the
> current situation to a more computable one, with whatever technologies seem
> most appropriate?
>
> John
>
>
> At 3:50 PM -0600 4/12/08, John Caron wrote:
> >Hi Jonathan, and all:
> >
> >This is a really helpful comment for me on "what standard names are for".
> I have had reservations since the beginning about standard names, because
> they are "just a string", which severely limits what kind of relationships
> can be expressed among them.
> >
> >Now "standard name = succint description = quick answer to 'what is
> this'?" finally makes this difficult process seem worth it. (Maybe its that
> Ive been stuck in the hell realm trying to figure out what arbitrary BUFR
> files mean using only the standard tables - no arbitrary key/value metadata!
> how sad!).
> >
> >What Ive been hoping for is a way to describe the relationships between
> data variables, in a way that allows users to make queries across a large
> collection of heterogeneous datasets. This is what (I think) all the work in
> ontologies is after. Now it seems clear that standard names may be a good
> starting point, but alone are not rich enough to express the kinds of
> relationships needed to achieve this.
> >
> >Since the "common concept" proposal seems to be also striving for this,
> its clearly time to consider what else is needed in addition to standard
> names. I will add further thoughts under that thread at:
> >
> > http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/24
> --
> ----------
> John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal at mbari.org> -- 831-775-1956
> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
> Marine Metadata Initiative: http://marinemetadata.org || Shore Side
> Data System: http://www.mbari.org/ssds
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
--
Dr Craig Donlon
Director of the International GODAE SST Pilot Project Office
Met Office Hadley Centre,
Fitzroy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 886622 Mob:07920 235750
Fax:+44 (0)1392 885681
Skype ID:crazit
SkypeIn: +44 0141 416 0882
E-mail: craig.donlon at gmail.com
http://www.ghrsst-pp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20080414/a42a6638/attachment-0002.html>
Received on Mon Apr 14 2008 - 14:42:48 BST
