W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2004

Re: Listing vocabularies RE: Some questions

From: Nick Knouf <nknouf@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:16:35 -0500
Message-Id: <DBBB411E-45E3-11D8-AC6C-000A95C44BCC@mit.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
To: Pete Johnston <p.johnston@ukoln.ac.uk>

> It was quite an eye-opener to see the large number of "variant" URIs
> deployed for common terms (either because specs had changed over time 
> or
> because of typos in XML, "#" in place of "/" in XML namespace names, 
> and
> so on), as well as the range of "locally" minted terms.

As a followup, I was wondering what people consider to be best 
practices when using a persistent URL service like purl.org.  For my 
bibTeX in OWL schema [1] the PURL for the namespace is


That PURL, when resolved (it goes to the schema definition), already 
has the # appended.  On the other hand, I could leave the # sign off of 
the PURL and the namespace would be


Does anyone have feelings one way versus the other?


Nick Knouf

[1] http://visus.mit.edu/bibtex/0.1/

> Pete
> -------
> Pete Johnston
> Research Officer (Interoperability)
> UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
> tel: +44 (0)1225 383619    fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
> mailto:p.johnston@ukoln.ac.uk
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 11:25:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:04 GMT