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

Re: URN as namespace URI for RDF Schema (run away... run away... ;-)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:33:28 -0400
Message-Id: <200410061233.i96CXSb8007304@roke.hawke.org>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
cc: T.Hammond@nature.com, leo@gnowsis.com, mdirector@iptc.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org



> > The good reasons I've heard are mostly:
> >    (1) convenience: dereference of the URI gets the ontology (schema)
> >        without any special server configuration
> 
> Err... yes, that's the argument, but IMO it's deceptively false
> because it is based on presumptions about schema management practices
> which are *known* to not encompass common practice.

What about in RDF "instance data", eg RSS items and people mentioned
in FOAF files?  These work very nicely using fragment URIs.

> Also, exactly why would an agent want to always get the
> entire ontology (think CYC, Wordnet, etc.) just to find out
> what a few *specific* term mean? A parallel would be having to
> download an entire mirror of a website to access a single page of
> that website after downloading the whole shabang. Yes, for
> tiny websites accessible via fast network connections, that
> could work, but it certainly wouldn't scale.

It's really a hard problem.  Given a term in wordnet or cyc, what
really does the naive client want transmitted?   Dan Brickley's
Wordnet approach (giving you the class hierarchy for a term when you
ask about it) is nice, but very slow/tedious if you want to
traverse lots of wordnet.   Cyc's all-in-one approach is of course
painful the first time, but then you have it all handy.

Natural divisions are nice when they exist.   :-)

> >    (2) architectural coherence: some people (notably TimBL) think of
> >        non-fragment URIs as identifying documents; they find=20
> > it jarring
> >        (or incoherent) when such URIs are used to identify properties,
> >        people, etc.
> 
> I would be surprised, and disappointed, if anyone trully found
> the idea of using PURIs to denote non-information-bearing resources
> either "jarring" or "incoherent". 

I understand TimBL to find it so, and for a time after talking with
him, I do so as well.   I also find it so whenever I've made the
mistake of talking to mere mortal web developers who don't use the
term "URI".  

     -- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:29:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:09 GMT