W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > May 2010

Re: URIs for public data - was RE: URIs for Concept & ConceptScheme - best practice?

From: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@gnowsis.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:21:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4BF142D3.3010805@gnowsis.com>
To: Kevin Richards <RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz>
CC: "rob.tice@k-int.com" <rob.tice@k-int.com>, "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, "simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu" <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
As usually, this is the moment where I say:
the Crisis of not knowing which Uris to use to identify concepts ("URI
crisis") is resolved by our W3C IG note about "cool uris for the
semantic web":
http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/

please read this explanation of the official spec.

best
Leo

It was Kevin Richards who said at the right time 14.05.2010 23:07 the
following words:
> I agree that it is important to distinguish between resolvability of
> the identifier and the 'identification' function of it.  I have
> recently blogged about a similar topic (somewhat of a blog novice
> however) - see http://biodiv-dev.blogspot.com/
> < a=""> >
> Kevin Richards
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Simon Cox" <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
> Date: Sat, May 15, 2010 1:56 AM
> Subject: URIs for public data - was RE: URIs for Concept &
> ConceptScheme - best practice?
> To: "&apos;Rob Tice&apos;" <rob.tice@k-int.com>,
> "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
>
> <http://biodiv-dev.blogspot.com/%20%3Cbr>
> Rob -
>  
> I'm somewhat familar with the data.gov.uk policy in this area, in
> particular the plans from the UK Location Program (I've been providing
> feedback to the latter, on behalf of JRC who lead the INSPIRE
> initiative, and the OGC where I chair the 'Naming Authority').
>  
> As I understand it data.gov.uk is aware of the issue, and is planning
> to address the problem by using domains that represent concepts
> (schools, roads, etc) rather than the todays name for the govt.
> department that administers the resource (dcsf yesterday, education
> today).
> This makes sense to me - the name has to be robust in the face of
> typical organizational instability.
>  
> But that's about the beginning of the URI: I'm focussing on the other
> end ;-)
>  
> Simon
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *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
> mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu
> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox
>
> SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
>
> Any opinions expressed are personal unless otherwise indicated.
>
>  
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Rob Tice [mailto:rob.tice@k-int.com]
>     *Sent:* Friday, 14 May 2010 15:44
>     *To:* 'Simon Cox'; public-esw-thes@w3.org
>     *Subject:* RE: URIs for Concept & ConceptScheme - best practice?
>
>     Simon
>
>      
>
>     Anyone who is in the UK at the mo and is in the business of
>     managing identifiers for resources within government departments
>     might possibly be ruminating on why uriís donít actually always
>     make good identifiers.  
>
>      
>
>     For info.
>
>      
>
>     http://www.education.gov.uk
>
>      
>
>     versus
>
>      
>
>     http://www.dcsf.gov.uk
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Proper separation between identification and resolution  anyone
>     (Ducks behind the parapet J)
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Cheers
>
>      
>
>     Rob
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *From:* public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
>     [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Simon Cox
>     *Sent:* 14 May 2010 13:42
>     *To:* public-esw-thes@w3.org
>     *Subject:* URIs for Concept & ConceptScheme - best practice?
>
>      
>
>     I'm thinking about identifier policies for ontologies and
>     concept-schemes.
>
>      
>
>     In work that I have done previously on identifier policies for
>     Open Geospatial Consortium and for Commission for Geoscience
>     Information we used the identifier scheme largely as a way to
>     enforce certain /governance/ arrangements for resource
>     publication. The general principle is that a URI is composed of a
>     number of fields. A new URI can only be minted if the values in
>     all the fields are valid; the allowable value for each field must
>     come from a specific register; and different parties are
>     authorized to modify different registers. So we end up with a
>     delegation system. This kind of scheme uses the URI structure for
>     internal governance purposes, within the community.
>
>      
>
>     But http URIs have a 'path-like' structure which can be
>     interpreted as a tree. Read in this way, the URI scheme impies
>     certain relationships between resources, in particular 'ownership'
>     of children by their parents. Notwithstanding the REST
>     principle that information is in the representation and not the
>     identifier, Cool URIs can be interpreted by users, and typically
>     support navigation through tweaking the URI (many refs).  This
>     kind of scheme is aimed at external users.
>
>      
>
>     Following this approach: is it smart to have the URI for a SKOS
>     concept to be just an extension of the URI for the SKOS concept
>     scheme? 
>
>      
>
>     e.g.
>
>     <http://resource.geosciml.org/concept/unit-rank/bed> skos:inScheme
>     <http://resource.geosciml.org/concept/unit-rank>.
>
>      
>
>     I'm assuming slash URIs, since I want the server to do most of the
>     work, supporting content-negotiation, etc.
>
>     The advantage in this approach is that a casual user can navigate
>     between parent and child by URI twiddling.
>
>     But possible gotchas are
>
>     (1) it assumes exactly one parent
>
>        - it requires every concept to be in a scheme
>
>        - it privileges one scheme above any others (though I think
>     there is no limit on the number of inScheme properties a Concept
>     can have?)
>
>     (2) there must be some others
>
>      
>
>     I'd be interested in comments.
>
>      
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------
>     *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
>     mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>     http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox
>
>     SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
>     IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
>     JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------
>
>      
>
>     Any opinions expressed are personal unless otherwise indicated.
>
>      
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,
> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender
> immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare
> Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz


-- 
Leo Sauermann, Dr.
CEO and Founder

mail: leo.sauermann@gnowsis.com
mobile: +43 6991 gnowsis           
http://www.gnowsis.com

helping people remember,

so join our newsletter
http://www.gnowsis.com/about/content/newsletter
____________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 13:30:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 May 2010 13:30:15 GMT