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

Re: pls keep Concepts and documents disjoint

From: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:42:05 -0400
To: 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
Message-id: <r02010200-1035-9C0F163E0C3811D9B4B0000393758032@[192.168.2.44]>

Dave Reynolds writes:

> 
> 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

This is true. On the other hand, it's not clear to me what advantage
<http://example.com/58#concept> has over <http://example.com/58>.

This is one of the Great Unresolved Issues of RDF, so it's probably best
for SKOS to be neutral. On the other hand, there are quite a few extant
vocabularies that don't use fragment IDs, e.g. FOAF and Dublin Core.
-- 
David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com> <http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/>
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 01:45:40 GMT

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