W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > March 2010

Re: National Identification Number URIs ( NIN URIs )

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:40:06 -0500
Message-ID: <4B950C46.8020003@openlinksw.com>
To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Bernhard Schandl wrote:
> Hugh,
>
>   
>> Maybe I am still misunderstanding, but I think that you rare still saying
>> that a urn/doi approach is compatible with Linked Data, or at least is not
>> harmful.
>> I think differently.
>> urn/doi is harmful - once it comes into existence, it is very hard to avoid
>> the problems of people using them, and then you have to start working out
>> where the server might be.
>> I am quite happy with people passing round http://foo.com/bar/urn:baz.quex,
>> as this is resolvable; I just don't want things that don't use http.
>>
>> I think Bernhard's questions suggest that your comments might have been
>> misinterpreted by him as I did, that urn: is acceptable as a Linked Data
>> URI.
>>     
>
> I didn't understand it that way. My question came from my objections against storing full dereferenceable HTTP URIs in a database, as this makes it difficult to migrate and distribute data.
>
> My question was: are there any objections against using URNs internally (i.e., within a database/triple store/file system/whatsoever), which are dynamically rewritten to HTTP URIs when they are served to the outside? (btw, this is exactly what e.g., Pubby [1] does.)
>   
Ditto Virtuoso [1] basically what you experience when you use DBpedia .
> So it's a question of internal vs. external identifiers -- both have their (different) purposes.
>   
Yes.

Links:

1.  
http://www.openlinksw.com/virtuoso/Whitepapers/html/vdld_html/VirtDeployingLinkedDataGuide.html 


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 



> And second question: if you already have the URNs, are there objections against publishing them *alongside* the HTTP URIs (using owl:sameAs), and therefore allowing them to be used as strong indicators for equivalence when linking datasets? Think of ISBN numbers published as URNs [2] alongside with resolvable HTTP URIs. There is a known schema for ISBN URNs, so why not reuse it?
>   
> [1] <http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/pubby/>
> [2] <http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3187.html>
>
> Best
> Bernhard
>
>
>   
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 14:40:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:25 UTC