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

RE: URI: Name or Network Location?

From: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:43:58 +0100
To: "'Patrick Stickler'" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005901c3e00b$79ec3090$0501a8c0@ZION>

Hello "uri crisis" again :-)

> I agree. Though I'm not sure that RDF *needs* to make a distinction 
> between the
> three use cases Tom describes, since in all three cases, the 
> URI simply  is a name denoting some resource, ...


In this discussion my old idea of "Seperation by Ontology" did not show
up so I will add it here:

        "Seperation by Ontology" 

means that you use a URI to identify both the document/resource at the
indicated web-place and also the concept behind. When you then want to
know some "http/html" specific stuff like "expiration date", you use the
html:expire ontology from some HTML scheme. When the resource also
describes f.e. a FOAF:Person, you can use FOAF:surname on it and it will
The resource has mutliple types and can be viewed from different
"dimensions", aka the different schemes. That also conforms to the RDF
specification of multiple types !

This is a practical solution and anybody who did already implement
somehting like it will agree on that, I hope.

I encourage you, who are interested in the "uri crisis" discussion, to
TRY OUT the different approaches and write some RDF with them and also
do some querying. You will be surprised how complicated in practice the
other approaches are.

Here are some articles I find interesting about this topic.

Especially Booth has some good overview of the problem

greetings from Vienna, 
Leo Sauermann
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2004 05:52:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:49 UTC