- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 21:22:46 -0400
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On 7/3/20 5:10 PM, Jiří Procházka wrote: > Dan, I like this perspective. Could you please elaborate on this part? > >> There is btw an issue with RDF in that each node can have at most one URI >> on it, which makes the use of transient/local IDs attractive so that the >> single place for global stable well-known IDs doesn't get "used up". If we >> all love URIs so much, could we find a way to have RDF with multiple URIs >> per graph node, perhaps? Or are we going to be stuck "sameAs-ing" them >> together across multiple co-referring nodes forever? > > I don't want to guess what you meant by that or what would you propose > to address it. Could you provide an example of the issue? > > I don't see much of a problem with minting new URIs for things which are > defined say in DBpedia and "sameAs-ing". Definitions and various > documents can evolve and diverge, so there being an option for consumers > to ignore the sameAs mapping, which sameAs being a semantic extension > and expressed in triples (ideally in a separate graph) provides, based > on criteria like provenance etc. is a good thing. > > Currently it seems to me that 1) the work of for publishers is simple > (could it even be simpler?) 2) I can't see how the consumers could avoid > the mapping work nor the consideration if to do it or not. FWIW I agree with Dan's point, though I don't look at it so much as "using up" the URI space, but rather as a combination of: - Creating stable URIs is much more difficult in practice than in theory, because it requires a hosted domain name that will live for a long time. RDF producers should not be forced to bear that up-front cost. - Developers should be able to use their own local names for things, but map them to well-known URIs later See also https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/17 David Booth
Received on Saturday, 4 July 2020 01:23:00 UTC