URIs and intellectual property

Hi Carl,

>  However, if a publisher did not employ this exemplary approach (to
> protect their investment?) then (of course) an indirect URI 
> must be used.

If I understand you correctly, I just wanted to comment on this, because it
seems there is a misconception that by publishing URIs for concepts a
thesaurus owner is somehow giving up their intellectual property.  

The reason why I think this is a misconception is explained nicely in:

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#id-access

I.e. it's like saying that giving a book an ISBN number violates the
copyright.

Al.




> Thus for pragmatic purposes I  encourage the use of indirect 
> identifiers
> as an architectural approach.
> 
> <quote who="Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com">
> 
> >> I suggest you follow Dublin Core's exemplary lead and use
> >> URIs without fragment identifiers to identify your terms.
> >> You'll be in very good company, and such an approach is
> >> fully compatible with the PR version of AWWW and every
> >> semantic web spec produced by the W3C to date.
> >
> > To be more specific, and more accurate regarding my
> > original meaning, I suggest that you use 'http:' URIs
> > without fragment identifiers to identify your terms.
> 
> -- 
> Carl Mattocks
> 
> co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
> co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
> CEO CHECKMi
> v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
> www.CHECKMi.com
> Semantically Smart Compendiums
> (AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi
>

Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 15:08:20 UTC