W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > April 2004

AW: URI policy for thesaurus concepts

From: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:49:29 +0200
To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, "'Bernard Vatant'" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Cc: "'Miles, AJ (Alistair) '" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, <public-esw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005201c42edb$7c89fcf0$0b01a8c0@Bundeslade>


I agree also to using http:// uris and / as delimiter.
Yes, I used some wordnet terms and it seems they work

Perhaps Patrick Stickler will also like it to use http:// and / to
identify concepts, his URIQA should work with it.

cheers
Leo

> * Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> [2004-04-30 17:36+0200]
> > 
> > To go along with Dan ...
> > 
> > I also prefer the / approach in principle because it defines more 
> > neatly the "subject indicator", but consider that e.g. OWL uses 
> > fragment identifiers to define classes and properties ...
> > 
> > Will not people be confused with OWL elements defined by 
> > http://example.org/myontology#class001
> > and SKOS concepts defined by http://example.org/myskos/concept001
> 
> Some RDF/RDFS/OWL vocabs end in a / and others end in a # and 
> others do other things. This is the current state of affairs. 
> The confusion is only a problem because these different 
> approaches have different technical and standards 
> characteristics (and those aren't well explained, currently).
> 
> > What about namespace management?
> 
> An important but relatively independent problem, I think.
> 
> > And having, e.g. for GEMET, over 8000 different 
> resources/concepts, if 
> > you just want to download the whole stuff, hmm... Is not it more 
> > simple to have a / namespace for a whole SKOS scheme, and # 
> for each 
> > concept in it?
> > 
> > We've been through this in Published Subjects TC, without clear 
> > conclusion ...
> 
> I've a few years experience using the 
> http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Cat etc approach, > and have to 
> say it is useful. The ability to return a useful chunk of 
> information from a larger dataset is something I am reluctant 
> to give up. Surely in the future we'll have richer (SKOS API, 
> RDF DAWG etc) interfaces to these datasets, but the current 
> approach can be implemented with a simple filetree or CGI 
> script, and has proved reasonably popular.
> 
> Dan
> 
Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 13:50:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:52 GMT