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: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:49:45 +0100
Message-ID: <4B1A3AC9.5000706@few.vu.nl>
To: "Houghton,Andrew" <houghtoa@oclc.org>
CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi Andy,

>> 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?

That could be an idea, but I'm really not sure CONNEG would enable that soon. It's for distinguishing between different form of contents, and both your entities are described using the same content form (RDF)--and they'd be in the same file.

Plus, if you use equivalentClass, you run into the issue of considering a person as a class. You should use a more neutral property. Note that a SKOS matching property won't fit either, as it would make your foaf:Person an instance of skos:Concept again, even though one still distinct from the first skos:Concept.


Received on Saturday, 5 December 2009 10:50:23 UTC

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