W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2000

SV: URI equivalence, URI's for "standard" identifiers

From: Greg FitzPatrick <gf@medianet.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:54:47 +0100
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Ron Daniel" <RDaniel@DATAFUSION.net>
Cc: "Eric Hellman" <eric@openly.com>, "RDF Interest Group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
I have been spending quite some time with two codes - ISIC rev 3 and CPC


Both are available at the United Nations Statistics Division.  I assume that
they are the property of the United Nations but I also assume that they are
made available for public use.  The jokes on me if I am wrong.

These codes are not islands.  They have  relatationships, alignments and
degrees of mapability to a world wide family of statistical codes such as
NAICE (btw used by Biztalk), SICs, SNAs, CTUA and TUS SITC and on and on.
The lines of transversion are:

a. timelined, e.g.

comparing economic activity of 1900 with that of 2000

b. framed, - similar activities performed in different frames e.g..

sawing trees as a gardener or sawing trees as a woodsman.

c. cultured, e.g..

An office manager in Borneo - an office manager in Sweden

d. languaged, e.g..

Lang=se Dirigent - Lang=en Conductor

I have lengthfuly dreamed about getting these codes and all their brothers
and sisters, aunts and cousins,  timelined, framed, cultured and translated
into a manageable schema, a veritable jungle-jim of nodes and arcs fanning
out from tight precision lockups to fuzzy disintegration, but alas who will
do the job?? Not you - right?

And as we venture out into Europe with the SKiCal initiative...

( see SKiCal at INRIA on FEB 15 http://www.w3.org/Mobile/posdep-workshop ),
we are constantly encountering projects attempting to create naming
conventions out of the blue as if there were not already a barn load in

Even CEN, with their TC 329/WG 2 N 69,  burning up EU money, as if there
didn't already exist a standard for tourist activities to build upon.  Or
check out these guys: 20 mil ECUs down the drain


Instead of helping to standardize and metatag European tourist resources,
they are building a "portal" with a proprietary naming convention and term

Back to earth - in lieu of the future, this is what we do for now.  Knowing
that ISIC rev. 3 and CPC v 1.0  are (or are supposed to be) translated to
every language of the United Nations...

		<CODE system="CPC v.1">94310 Runways, vacuuming of </CODE>

Does anybody know a better way of providing 153 automatic translations of a
very esoteric service, let me know?


	<WHO> <DIPROLE system="ISIC rev. 3">9214 ghostwriters,
		<DIPNAME>Mark Fischetti</DIPNAME>...

Is not that a great start for the semantic web?


> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]För Charles McCathieNevile
> Skickat: den 21 januari 2000 00:09
> Till: Ron Daniel
> Kopia: Eric Hellman; RDF Interest Group
> Ämne: RE: URI equivalence, URI's for "standard" identifiers
> But does the ISO have a trademark on the term "ISO 9000" that
> means they can
> stop people from using the term to refer to something that meets ISO9000
> (whatever that is)?
> Surely not. And it is a simple matter to create a scheme for
> expressing that
> something cvlaims to meet ISO9000 - in fact I have done something
> like this
> for asserting that something meets WAI guidelines. All you need
> is a URI for
> "so,mething" and a URI for ISO9000...
> This is a whole different question to actually assesssing that
> conformance or
> even knowing what ISO9000 is...
> Charles McCN
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Ron Daniel wrote:
>   Eric Hellman asks:
>   > Is there any consensus in the RDF community about what URI's to use
>   > for standard identifiers such as ISBN, ISSN, UPC codes, or for things
>   > like Stock tickers, cusips, patent numbers? It's not like it would
>   > take much effort.
>   >
>   [Ron Daniel]  The biggest problem is that such identifiers
>   are the intellectual property of particular standardization
>   and maintenance bodies. They would probably be somewhat
>   miffed if we start having our way with their property.
>   There is an RFC that hypothesizes URN namespaces like
>   urn:isbn and urn:issn. But those will not be standardized
>   without the permission of the relevant organizations.
>   > It seems to me that
>   > everyone should at least agree how to say that two URI's refer to the
>   > same thing.
>   >
>   >
>   [Ron Daniel]  Yes, such a thing should be developed. However,
>   I am not aware of any active W3C working group that could take
>   this up.
>   One thing to keep in mind is that there are degrees of equivalence.
>   Regards,
>   Ron Daniel Jr.
>   139 Townsend Street, Suite 100
>   San Francisco, CA  94107
>   415.836.7813 fax 415.222.0150
>   rdaniel@datafusion.net
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0)
> 409 134 136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia
Received on Friday, 21 January 2000 10:55:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:28 UTC