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

Re: URLs instead of URNs (Was URI lifecycle (Was: Owning URIs))

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 22:45:20 -0400
To: "W. Orthuber" <orthuber@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de>
Cc: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1243219520.17404.37.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 17:08 +0100, W. Orthuber wrote:
> David,
> 
> >> In short, although semantic web architecture could be designed to permit
> >> unrestricted semantic drift,
> >>I think it is a better design -- better
> >> serving the semantic web community as a whole -- to adopt an
> >> architecture that permits the semantics of each URI to be anchored, by
> >> use of a URI declaration.
> >Absolutement.
> Yes, I think also, URIs should be well defined. Up to now I thought they are, but your article shows that URIs (which are not URLs)
> have not necessarily an unique definition! Moreover URI should be anchored; the best would be that they contain a link to all their
> definition and further bindingly associated information.
> 
> Why not prefer URIs which are (special "defining") URLs, which contain
> a link to a file which contains links to all defining 
> information (unambiguous
> information, in multiple languages if wished)?
> So the anchor would be at once accessible and there would be exactly
> one location for the decisive information.

Yes, the preferred way to do that is quite well described in "Cool URIs
for the Semantic Web":
http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris 

> 
-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 02:45:55 GMT

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