W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2007

Re: RDF for molecules, using InChI

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:42:21 +0100
Message-ID: <46B8A0ED.3020905@musc.edu>
To: ogbujic@ccf.org
CC: public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> The HTTP scheme:
>
> http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]
>
> Does not have any formal components for identify management (dates and
> versions).  A person (or group) who may not have control over webspace
> but has a coherent theory they wish to express in OWL will probably find
> these aspects of the tag (and lsid) schemes useful for guiding their
> naming convention rather than inventing one (with perhaps a bogus
> authority - such as 'example.com').
>   
But this is not a strong argument for inventing a new URI.  Given two 
LSIDs varying only in version number, what is the exact relationship 
between the two resources? Sure, they are related but in what way? 
(I.e., what kind assertion you can make between them?) What if someone 
want to put a different version semantics into the URI?

If every time a new URI scheme is invented to add a new feature, we will 
need a lot of URI schemes.  On the other hand, if we are to put all 
features into one URI scheme, the name will be too long to be useful.

The point is: identity and version management is not the 
responsibilities of a name.  In the web, a name is only useful when it 
is resolvable to a unique resource. As I said in a previous mail, to 
think the RDF representation of a resource differently other types of 
representation.  Think, "get application/rdf+xml as the getMetadata()", 
then manage the identity, version, provenance, etc., etc., in there.  
There is no need to put them in the name.  

Xiaoshu 
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 16:48:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:49 GMT