- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:08:08 +0200
- To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org, Franck Cotton <franck.cotton@insee.fr>
Eric > I don't know if that's what Bernard would call elegant :), but what > about defining T1 in both DOC1 and DOC2 with a xml:base equal to DOC > (which means that in both DOC1 and DOC2, the identifier for #T1 is > neither DOC1#T1 nor DOC2#T1 but DOC#T1) and using a placeholder at the > address DOC#T1 with links (using rdfs:seeAlso or whatever) toward DOC1 > and DOC2? > (Note that the mechanism can be adapted to slash URIs.) > You mean e.g at http://rdf.insee.fr/geo/DEP_05 you would get a placeholder containing no formal description beyond things like rdfs:seeAlso http://rdf.insee.fr/geo/regions-2003.rdf#DEP_05 rdfs:seeAlso http://rdf.insee.fr/geo/departements-2003.rdf#DEP_05 > That keeps DOC1 and DOC2 "equally normative". Applications which want to > use them directly can do it and applications which don't have a clue > where they can find information about DOC#T1 can dereference this URI to > get a first idea where that can look. > > I see that as the equivalent of RDDL for namespace URIs: you use the URI > to publish a hint for applications that have no idea what the namespace > is about. > > Would that be acceptable for both of you? > I buy it. > The last solution if this doesn't work for you could be to use either > non HTTP URIs or even anonymous RDF nodes and a > owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. Seems to be an overkill to me since in > this case we have a central authority which can define URIs but the > INSEE code is a perfect candidate for being an > owl:InverseFunctionalProperty... > Hmm. Not sure I would like that solution. Bernard
Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 16:08:32 UTC