W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2001

RE: Using urn:publicid: for namespaces

From: Stephen Cranefield <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:47:59 +1200
Message-ID: <B57613845A50D211864C0000F8FA5C28042074C9@mars.otago.ac.nz>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Sean Palmer wrote:
> The names in the schema will often be independant of the storage
> location of the schema. For example:-
> 
>    <http://blargh.org/#myTerm> :label "myTerm" .
> 
> Now, store that anywhere you like: the URI that is being defined isn't
> going to change. A concept does not change just because you change the
> location of its definition.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that the use of label solves the
problem, or whether it is the explicit URI that is the point of your
example.  I don't see how using label helps.  According to RDF Schema,
rdfs:label "is used to provide a human-readable version of a resource
name", so this won't affect the URI of the resource being defined.

If it's the explicit URI used to identify the resource, then yes, that
makes the concept's URI independent of the schema location, but that
doesn't seem to be common practice.  For example, here's a definition
from RDF Schema:

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Resource">
  <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Resource</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:label xml:lang="fr">Ressource</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:comment>The most general class</rdfs:comment>
</rdfs:Class>

When its namespace URL is used to locate it, this concept has URI
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource, but if I keep a local
copy there will be an equivalent concept named (e.g.)
http://nzdis.otago.ac.nz/resources/rdf-schema.rdf#Resource

Does this mean that RDF Schema is a bad example to follow?  If so,
what is the current best practice?

- Stephen
Received on Monday, 13 August 2001 20:46:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:51 GMT