- From: Carl Mattocks <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:32:05 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Al: Agreed - and thanks for the reference. I acknowledge that publishers may have these fears and would like them to understand that the indirect approach provides an opportunity to strengthen their position as an authority and promote their IP rights. carl <quote who="Miles, AJ (Alistair)"> > > 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 15:32:06 UTC