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

RE: working around the identity crisis

From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:02:00 +0000
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-id: <PM-EV.20041116190200.ADB3B.1.1D@bodkin.nuigalway.ie>

On 16.11.2004 18:30:46, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:

>> I actually like  #-vocabs very much as they are usually using the
>> rdf:ID construct which makes them easier to read (and yes,
>> "view-source"-
>> friendliness *can* help the SemWeb grow ;).
>Couldn't you just use rdf:about with relative URIs and an xml:base? Gives
>you same reader-friendliness as rdf:ID, and doesn't restrict you to a hash
*I* could, yes. Others could, too, but they often don't do it (I was more
thinking about other people's vocabs in my post). using xml entities is
another handy option for uri abbreviation which doesn't seem to be too


>Yeah, this style of URI is no good for RDF/OWL Classes or predicates, as it
>precludes nice looking qnames (such as 'skos:prefLabel').
>However, this isn't usually a major concern for RDF descriptions of concepts
>from thesauri, as these are generally not used as classes or predicates.
regarding SKOS, would you like to see support of this "slash plus hash"
approach for concept URIs in SKOS authoring tools? IOW, would you
encourage glossary authors to create concept URIs of that form? (Or am I
asking that a too early stage? My current plan was to use slash'd concept



Benjamin Nowack

Kruppstr. 100
45145 Essen, Germany

Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 19:00:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:04 UTC