- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:02:17 -0500
- To: public-webid@w3.org
- Message-ID: <511FBB99.6030300@openlinksw.com>
On 2/16/13 10:27 AM, Henry Story wrote: > I don' think that quite locates the problem at the right place. > It would be completely feasible to have one #uri per vocabulary element, each at > a different location. For example all of DBPedias resource URIs could just return > the content inside so one could have > > http://dbpedia.org/resource/Whiskey#x > > defined by > > http://dbpedia.org/resource/Whiskey All nice and easy to speculate about. You go tell the authors of the existing ontologies to make this change. I already told you a long time ago why we made specific decisions about DBpedia URIs. And as for DBpedia, you would like us to make the change above and mess everything up in the LOD cloud? Or you would like us to add a whole new batch of owl:sameAs relations? Speculation is no justification for the notice in the WebID spec re. hashless HTTP URIs. As I've said, drop the unnecessary notice and this matter is closed. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Saturday, 16 February 2013 17:02:40 UTC