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
http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/#httpRange-14
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