- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:41:39 -0400
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-esw@w3.org
* Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> [2004-04-30 17:36+0200] > > To go along with Dan ... > > I also prefer the / approach in principle because it defines more neatly the "subject > indicator", but consider that e.g. OWL uses fragment identifiers to define classes and > properties ... > > Will not people be confused with OWL elements defined by > http://example.org/myontology#class001 > and SKOS concepts defined by http://example.org/myskos/concept001 Some RDF/RDFS/OWL vocabs end in a / and others end in a # and others do other things. This is the current state of affairs. The confusion is only a problem because these different approaches have different technical and standards characteristics (and those aren't well explained, currently). > What about namespace management? An important but relatively independent problem, I think. > And having, e.g. for GEMET, over 8000 different resources/concepts, if you just want to > download the whole stuff, hmm... > Is not it more simple to have a / namespace for a whole SKOS scheme, and # for each > concept in it? > > We've been through this in Published Subjects TC, without clear conclusion ... I've a few years experience using the http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Cat etc approach, and have to say it is useful. The ability to return a useful chunk of information from a larger dataset is something I am reluctant to give up. Surely in the future we'll have richer (SKOS API, RDF DAWG etc) interfaces to these datasets, but the current approach can be implemented with a simple filetree or CGI script, and has proved reasonably popular. Dan
Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 12:03:28 UTC