W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > January 2008

Re: HTTP URIs for real world objects

From: Martin Hepp (UIBK) <martin.hepp@uibk.ac.at>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:31:16 +0100
Message-ID: <478F82D4.50709@uibk.ac.at>
To: KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
CC: Peter F Brown <peter@pensive.eu>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>, Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>, public-sweo-ig@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org

To me, the cleanest approach of reusing the huge set of consensual 
identifiers for non-information resources that Wikipedia URIs are would be
to import them into a clean new namespace and link back from those to 
the original Wikipedia URIs via rdfs:seeAlso.

KANZAKI Masahide wrote:
> agreed that terminology is confusing and causes many troubles ;-)
> Per spec, an information resource that "provides some kind of
> compelling and unambiguous indication of the identity of a subject to
> humans" is a 'subject indicator', which is 'a proxy for the thing' in
> your term if I understand you correctly.
> Also per spec, "The address of a subject indicator is called a subject
> identifier", i.e., if an wikipedia page is a PSI (indicator), its URI
> is a PSId (identifier). PSI is a resource, not a URI.
> *
> btw, I've mis-understood the requirement I mentioned before: spec
> requires that PSI must "explicitly state the unique URI" (not
> explicitly state "that URI is to be used as its PSId", which I've
> thought). Hence, an wikipedia page could be a PSI.
> cheers,
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 16:31:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:58 UTC