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

RE: URI policy for thesaurus concepts

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:36:20 +0200
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, <public-esw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCOEDPDPAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>


To go along with Dan ...

I also prefer the / approach in principle because it defines more neatly the "subject
indicator", but consider that e.g. OWL uses fragment identifiers to define classes and
properties ...

Will not people be confused with OWL elements defined by
http://example.org/myontology#class001
and SKOS concepts defined by http://example.org/myskos/concept001

What about namespace management?

And having, e.g. for GEMET, over 8000 different resources/concepts, if you just want to
download the whole stuff, hmm...
Is not it more simple to have a / namespace for a whole SKOS scheme, and # for each
concept in it?

We've been through this in Published Subjects TC, without clear conclusion ...

Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Knowledge Engineering
Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
bernard.vatant@mondeca.com


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : public-esw-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-request@w3.org]De la
> part de Dan Brickley
> Envoye : vendredi 30 avril 2004 17:19
> A : Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc : 'public-esw-thes@w3.org'; 'public-esw@w3.org'
> Objet : Re: URI policy for thesaurus concepts
>
>
>
> * 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 11:37:16 GMT

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