- From: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:37:10 +0000
- To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Cc: public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 31 Jan 2014, at 11:29, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote: > On 01/30/2014 09:10 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 1/30/14 1:09 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >>> >>> >>> If not bad, is there any provision for allowing that an HTTPS URI >>> that only differs in the scheme part from HTTPS URI be identified >>> as the same resource? >>> >>> >>> http and https are fundamentally different resources, but you can link >>> them together with owl : sameAs, I think ... >> >> Yes. >> >> You simply use an <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs> relation to >> indicate that a common entity is denoted [1] by the http: and https: >> scheme URIs in question. > does it make sense then to use https: IRIs if we state that one can treat http: version as equivalent? Yes. Because you get a different description of the NIR back from the other URI. I’m tempted to say that the s after the http is no different to adding an s to the end - they are both valid URIs, and so simply opaque identifiers. But someone will probably tell me that is too sloppy :-) On the other hand, if I was to be pedantic, adding the s to the end of the http does take you out of Linked Data (although it is Semantic Web) according to the Principles. But I have never let a little thing like that bother me. -- Hugh Glaser 20 Portchester Rise Eastleigh SO50 4QS Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155, Home: +44 23 8061 5652
Received on Friday, 31 January 2014 11:37:34 UTC