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

Re: URI policy for thesaurus concepts

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:18:36 -0400
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, "'public-esw@w3.org'" <public-esw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040430151836.GP25049@homer.w3.org>

* Miles, AJ (Alistair)  <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> [2004-04-30 16:08+0100]
> 
> On the basis of the previous discussion on URIs for concepts, I'm going to
> offer the recommendation to thesaurus owners that they use http: based uris
> without fragment identifiers as URIs for their concepts.
> 
> So for example:
> 
> GEMET thesaurus URI: http://www.eionet.eu.int/GEMET/[version]
> 
> GEMET concept URIs: http://www.eionet.eu.int/GEMET/[version]/[conceptID]   
> 
> Reason for going with http: based URIs is it seems generally agreed that it
> is desirable to have the concept URIs directly resolving to something.
> 
> Reason for going with / and not # is so that the concept ID is included in
> an http GET request and not lost as it would be if it came after a #.
> 
> I.e. decision based on purely practical considerations.
> 
> Anybody want to shoot this down before I approach GEMET (& others) with
> this?

I prefer the / approach, but I should warn that TimBL and others have
made the claim that http://blah/ URIs without a # can only name
'documents' or 'networked information resources', and that concepts,
classes, properties etc don't count as those.

So, if you do advice thesaurus folks one way or the other, try to make
clear that this aspect of web architecture is still under discussion.

Dan
Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 11:18:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:13 GMT