W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > December 2009

RE: Need advice on using same URI for SKOS and FOAF descriptions

From: Houghton,Andrew <houghtoa@oclc.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:26:01 -0500
Message-ID: <6548F17059905B48B2A6F28CE3692BAA05981F8A@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 05:00 AM
> To: Houghton,Andrew
> Cc: SKOS
> Subject: Re: Need advice on using same URI for SKOS and FOAF
> descriptions
> 
> The solution indeed lies in properly deciding whether you want to use
> the same URI for the two views on the person, and if you are ready to
> face all the consequences of it.

Right that's what I'm trying to find out: what are the consequences of
using the same Real-World Object (RWO) URI for both of these 
representations.  My gut reaction was that the project is heading for
troubled waters, but I don't know what would be lurking ahead, which
is what I'm trying to find out.

> I'd say that if you have several values for the same property for your
> two "instances", that hints that your application requires distinct
> individuals, and not conflating possibly incompatible information!

I thought about this last night and a possible solution might be to do
something like:

<rdf:RDF>
  <foaf:Person rdf:about="http://example.org/person/1#foaf">
    <foaf:name>person 1</foaf:name>
    <dc:date>1995</dc:date>
    <owl:equivalentClass rdf:resource="http://example.org/person/1" />
  </foaf:Person>
  <skos:Concept rdf:about="http://example.org/person/1#skos">
    <skos:prefLabel>person 1</skos:prefLabel>
    <dc:date>1996</dc:date>
    <owl:equivalentClass rdf:resource="http://example.org/person/1" />
  </skos:Concept>
</rdf:RDF>

This keeps the project's FOAF and SKOS descriptions separate and I think
it keeps the integrity of the RWO URI.  If a user agent dereferences the
FOAF or SKOS URI the server will see the RWO URI and can allow CONNEG so
the user agent can get back the appropriate representation.  What are 
your thoughts on using the hashed URIs for the different representations?


Thanks, Andy.
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 17:26:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:12 UTC