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

Re: URIs Re: Getting RDF data into HTML

From: Stephen K. Rhoads <rhoads@thrupoint.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:42:30 -0500
Message-ID: <00f401c3dea2$da214eb0$918afea9@RHOADS03>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Charles,

Is there any information available on this "semantic meaning" spec?  It
sounds like it will be related to something I am struggling with.

--- Stephen


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam-www-rdf-interest@aka.mcc.id.au>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 10:32 PM
Subject: URIs Re: Getting RDF data into HTML


>
> Hi Cameron,
>
> this isn't something that is apparently agreed. My feeling is that you can
> use a URI however you want, just like you can a word in a natural
language,
> but that you are much better off ensuring you're not doing something
> incompatible with what other people do.
>
> I would suggect that you use the approach of FOAF:
>
>   <re:Movie><foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://www.imdb.com..."
>
> (Hmm, I guess that's what the re:webpage property does actually). If you
want
> to you can define a node that refers to this Movie, of course.
>
> Note that there is work on a "semantic meaning" spec, which would
apparently
> claim that there is a defined meaning for the URI that someone else
created.
>
> I'm also not a big fan of using a URI that refers to a page for referring
to
> a concept. It means that it isn't possible to distinguish between the page
> and something identifiedd in the page, which strikes me as a bad confusion
to
> create.
>
> Of course this sugggests that if you're going to use an identifier you
should
> define it yourself with a URI you control, since if someone else does put
an
> RDF schema there and defines it as something else you'll look a bit silly
to
> anyone who does de-reference it.
>
> just some thioughts...
>
> Chaals
>
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi everyone.  I've been lurking for a couple of months while my interest
> >in RDF has been swelling.
> >
> >I have some RDF which describes TV shows and films I have seen and short
> >reviews or thoughts about them.  This is the file of reviews
> >
> >  http://mcc.id.au/sw/reviews
> >
> >and this is the RDF schema for my review namespace
> >
> >  http://mcc.id.au/sw/schema/reviews-1.0
> >
> >.  Firstly, some questions about how my RDF.
> >
> >1. Is it OK that I have chosen URIs to identify my re:Movie and
> >re:Episode objects?  For example, for a movie I'll use the imdb.com URL
> >for that movie, and for an episode I might use the geos.tv page.  Or
> >should I be using URIs that are under my control?  What if, in the
> >future, it is decided that a different URI is the accepted standard for
> >identifying movies and TV episodes?
> >
> >2. Am I right in thinking that the URIs I used to identify the re:Movies
> >and re:Episodes do not necessarily have to have any information at them
> >if dereferenced, and that it is a good idea to have the re:webpage
> >properties as I do?
> >
Received on Monday, 19 January 2004 11:03:11 GMT

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