W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Owning URIs (Was: Yet Another LOD cloud browser)

From: Wolfgang Orthuber <orthuber@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:10:55 +0100
Message-ID: <000f01c9d87a$dcce7f20$a3b35ec2@workstation>
To: "Li Ding" <dingl@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: "Linked Data community" <public-lod@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
Li,

it would be not difficult to define a syntax and rules so that exclusive ownership (standardization model) and
shared ownership (social wikipedia model) can exist simultaneously. At this the standardization model can be
designed very efficiently (decentrally defined templates for human readable representation in many languages
and metrics for similarity search are at once accessible, cf. my fist email of yesterday).

These advantages would be also possible for the social model, because shared ownership could be integrated
into the standardization model if only one socially good organized domain name owner (e.g. wikipedia.org)
allows this.

Of course this is only possible, if there is (official) support for a concrete design variant of the
standardization model. If there are questions concerning the concrete design in detail, please don't hesitate
to ask me.

Wolfgang

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Li Ding" <dingl@cs.rpi.edu>
To: "Wolfgang Orthuber" <orthuber@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de>
Cc: "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>; "Linked Data community" <public-lod@w3.org>;
<semantic-web@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: Owning URIs (Was: Yet Another LOD cloud browser)


>> If there is no explicit official standard and recommendation for such global
>> task sharing, there is the
>> danger that those who need a special vocabulary develop many incompatible
>> standards for exchange of machine
>> readable data.
>>
>> The earlier such a standard for well defined task sharing is recommended by
>> W3C, the easier it can be
>> introduced.
>
> well, we can learn from the past:
> (i) biomedical terminologies are systematically maintained and
> probably globalized -  I would say such terms are maintained via
> standardization processes.  recent advance of DOI allows use to assign
> an official URI for a publication. so does DNS.
> (ii) English is evolving by daily life usage (that just reminded me an
> earlier mail by Jeremy on "live meaning and dead languages") - this is
> case for a social vocabulary development
>
> As mentioned in the previous email, standardization and social
> evolution are useful and somehow complementary. However, they are more
> or less an approach to the goal, which has been discussed in previous
> email:
> * given an URI in browser, a user really need to get it resolved (i.e.
> be able to fetch its definition) , whether using the namespace of the
> URI or use a search engine is just an option to the browser.
> * knowing the ownership will be helpful for users to trust the
> description of URI.  The coexistence of exclusive ownership
> (standardization model) or shared ownership (social wikipedia model)
> are complementary solutions.
>
> As David said, social evolution could be "dirty", but it also looks good:
> * it is really not an easy job for one to maintain a comprehensive
> description of URI for a long time (hard drive may crash, money may
> run out, interests may switch, language may change). In addition to
> the exclusive ownership for important concepts, open source style
> social development should help too.  so why not allow multiple
> ownership for one URI
> * the web is open, how can we help end users to pick one from the
> multiple URIs referring to the same concept. so why not use social
> ranking (where ownership may play an important role) to enable the
> Darwin evolution.
>
>
> -- 
> Li Ding
> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~dingl/
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 11:07:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:29 GMT