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

RE: pls keep Concepts and documents disjoint

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:35:51 +0100
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C05E50C21@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: 'Dan Brickley' <danbri@w3.org>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, connolly@w3.org

The thing is, I agree with ...

> > However, I would suggest that the SKOS guide should be 
> neutral on all this 
> > allowing developers to chose the form of URI that best fits 
> their needs.

... but the new SKOS Core Guide and Vocab Spec (under development) are going
to have lots of examples, and if the rest of the world is anything like me,
they won't read anything else but the examples.  So whatever style gets
chosen for the examples I'm guessing is going to get copied and pasted alot.


In the examples I prepared so far for the new vocab spec (see e.g. [1]) I
used slash style URIs ... should I change these to hashes?  It would be nice
to use a consistent style throughout, but that means making a choice.

The style ...

http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/water#concept

... gets around the resolution problem neatly, but there's what Danbri said
about RDF/XML syntax, plus I reckon lot's of thesaurus people are going to
look at that and say 'what the ????'.  To use this style is a possible
compromise position for the SKOS Core examples, but I fear it's going to
raise a lot of questions and cause some confusion  ... which might be a good
thing because at least it would get people thinking about the issues ... but
then most people don't want to have to think about this kind of problem,
they just want clear recommendations ... ????

> > would make sense to have a section or appendix referring to 
> the controversy 
> > over use of slash v. hash so that developers are aware of 
> the issues and 
> > options. However, it doesn't seem appropriate for SKOS to 
> mandate one 
> > approach above the other given there are reasonable 
> arguments and existing 
> > practice on both sides.
> 
> +1

+1 from me too ... and I'm hoping we can point to a note from the SWBP-WG
Vocab Management TF for this (passing the buck :)  See also [2].

Al.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/examples/Concept.rdf.xml
[2] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/term-identifier-guidelines/


---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: 21 September 2004 15:07
> To: Dave Reynolds
> Cc: Miles, AJ (Alistair) ; 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'; connolly@w3.org
> Subject: Re: pls keep Concepts and documents disjoint
> 
> 
> * Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2004-09-21 14:51+0100]
> > 
> > Actually use of fragment identifiers doesn't necessarily 
> require you to put 
> > the whole thesaurus at a single URL. For example, you could use an 
> > arbitrary fragment ID to reinforce that you are referring 
> to a concept 
> > rather than a document describing the concept but still put 
> each concept 
> > definition at a separate base URL:
> > 
> >    http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/water#concept
> >    http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/ice#concept
> > or
> >    http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/water#Water
> >    http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/ice#Ice
> 
> That's true, and DanC has made similar arguments promoting that model 
> when we were discussing the Wordnet namespace I made, 
> http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Water etc...
> 
> Problem is that it is really pretty awful reading and writing 
> RDF/XML in
> that idiom. Perhaps an alternate syntax could make it more 
> bearable, but
> you currently need a distinct namespace declaration for each 
> term used.
> This hurts my class-based wordnet hyponym vocab more than it 
> hurts SKOS
> or the current SWBP wordnet design, since we get to make quite pretty
> looking XML with category words appearing as element names. I know
> RDF's designed for machines, but the 'RDF syntax sucks' objection is
> heard so frequently that I find it hard to ignore, from an outreach
> point of view.
> 
> > 
> > However, I would suggest that the SKOS guide should be 
> neutral on all this 
> > allowing developers to chose the form of URI that best fits 
> their needs. It 
> 
> RDF vocabs are inherently neutral regarding URI form, or even URIs vs
> bnodes, in instance data. That said, is good to have clear examples up
> front in docs, and people always copy from examples, so this might not
> be entirely sidesteppable.
> 
> > would make sense to have a section or appendix referring to 
> the controversy 
> > over use of slash v. hash so that developers are aware of 
> the issues and 
> > options. However, it doesn't seem appropriate for SKOS to 
> mandate one 
> > approach above the other given there are reasonable 
> arguments and existing 
> > practice on both sides.
> 
> +1
> 
> Dan
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 14:36:25 GMT

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