W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > May 2010

Re: [pedantic-web] Re: The OWL Ontology URI

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:08:27 -0400
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1273802907.8110.3003.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 08:28 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
[ . . . ]
> A = an RDF graph
> B = an RDF/XML file that encodes (etc.) A
> Brep = a REST-representation of B
> C = an N-triples file that encodes (etc.) A
> Crep = a REST-representation of C
> D = a "generic resource" (in TimBL's sense of the word, and as
> permitted by the content negotiation feature of HTTP) with the
> following properties:
>    Brep is a REST-representation of D
>    Crep is a REST-representation of D
> U is a URI that is used (in RDF, say, or elsewhere) to refer to B
> V is a URI that is used to refer to D
[ . . . ]
> You are right that we shouldn't use U to refer to A. 

The only problem I see with using U to refer to A both A and B
(ambiguously) is if you have some application need to distinguish
between A and B.  As explained here
there is no architectural reason why U should not refer (ambiguously) to
both A and B.  Whether or not it should is an engineering choice that
depends on your application.

David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 02:08:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:08 UTC