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: Simon Cox <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:55:10 +0100
To: "'Houghton,Andrew'" <houghtoa@oclc.org>, "'Antoine Isaac'" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02F428832570498485C5BD084FF04DF4@H07.jrc.it>
Why 'equivalentClass'? 
Surely a person is an individual!? (cue quotes from Life of Brian). 

Simon Cox

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 
Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 
Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 
Tel: +39 0332 78 3652
Fax: +39 0332 78 6325

SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

-----Original Message-----
From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Houghton,Andrew
Sent: Friday, 4 December 2009 18:26
To: Antoine Isaac
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Subject: RE: Need advice on using same URI for SKOS and FOAF descriptions

> 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

> 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:

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

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 Thursday, 10 December 2009 07:55:55 UTC

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