RE: lcsh.info RDFa SKOS and content negotiation - use of RDF-style # IDs in RDFa?

Hi Steven,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Pemberton [mailto:steven.pemberton@cwi.nl]
> Sent: 03 October 2008 15:15
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol); Pat Hayes
> Cc: Dan Brickley; RDFa; www-tag@w3.org WG; Ed Summers
> Subject: Re: lcsh.info RDFa SKOS and content negotiation -
> use of RDF-style # IDs in RDFa?
>
> > Re: pto:
> >
> > I always quite liked tdb: and duri: scheme that Larry Massinter drafted
> > [1]
> >
> > Certainly in concept 'Thing-described-By' and 'Primary-Topic-Of' may be
> > similar, the tdb: scheme also provides an anchor in time aswell (the
> > latent access may become problematic).
>
> I like Larry's scheme as well, but the time bit is either too little or
> too much, because once you start allowing for the primary topic of a
> resource changing over time, well, then why not foaf:name of a person, or
> w3c:isEditorOf a spec, or any property really.

Well... because they do change (and raw RDF lacks a temporal dimension). Good governance can seek to restrict the ravages of time... but time will outlive us all and all our institutions...

ok pragmatics might mean that for most practical purposes this shouldn't be an issue. In the case of tdb: it would be unfortuate of the epoch starts used were somewhat arbitrary rather than reflective of the earliest moment following a significant change in pto (arising from a failure of governance).

IIRC tdb: does have form of large-scale millenium bug, but provides a huge amount of time in which to fix it :-)

> Steven

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England>

Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 15:15:40 UTC