- From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:42:40 +0100
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, "'public-swbp-wg@w3.org'" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 01:06:49PM -0000, Alistair Miles wrote: > So the choice I see boils down to: > > When describing best practise for creating RDF descriptions of thesauri > without official URIs, do we ... > > (a) attempt to remain neutral about whether people make up unofficial URIs, > and rely on the owl:sameAs machinery to cope with multiple published URIs > for the same concept, or ... > (b) actively encourage the publication of these thesauri with concept nodes > as blank nodes, and additionally publish guidelines on how reference by > description may be used to refer to such concepts from other RDF > descriptions (which may depend on rules technology without any current > standard implementations). Alistair addressed the question above to the PORT task force [1], but it is potentially relevant to the VM TF. Leo argued strongly against option "b", pointing out that robust guidelines have yet to be formulated [2]. In the revised VM draft (to be posted very soon to a Wiki), I have penciled in Alistair for a few words about the dilemma of coining multiple URIs for the same thing in order to get work done but am assuming that non-URI-based methods for "reference by description" will _not_ be covered in the VM note. Tom [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0025.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Nov/0028.html -- Dr. Thomas Baker Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352 Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2004 10:37:18 UTC