Re: pls keep Concepts and documents disjoint

Actually use of fragment identifiers doesn't necessarily require you to put 
the whole thesaurus at a single URL. For example, you could use an 
arbitrary fragment ID to reinforce that you are referring to a concept 
rather than a document describing the concept but still put each concept 
definition at a separate base URL:

    http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/water#concept
    http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/ice#concept
or
    http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/water#Water
    http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/ice#Ice

However, I would suggest that the SKOS guide should be neutral on all this 
allowing developers to chose the form of URI that best fits their needs. It 
would make sense to have a section or appendix referring to the controversy 
over use of slash v. hash so that developers are aware of the issues and 
options. However, it doesn't seem appropriate for SKOS to mandate one 
approach above the other given there are reasonable arguments and existing 
practice on both sides.

Dave


Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:

> Dan,
> 
> Thanks alot for stating a clear position on this issue.  I'm sure you've
> heard this argument before, but I'll state it again for the record ...  
> 
> The main problem I see with not allowing 'slash' URIs for concepts is that
> with 'hash' URIs the fragment identifiers are not passed to a resolution
> service.  
> 
> Many thesauri are on the 1000s of concepts scale.  Where the thesaurus owner
> would like to deploy an http service that resolves concept URIs to some sort
> of helpful documentation, it is impractical to have a single document
> serving the entire concept space.
> 
> [To everyone ...]
> 
> As we are looking to publish a new SKOS Core vocabulary specification and
> guide within the next two months or so, both of which will include lots of
> examples, we must come up with a clear (or at least neutral) position on
> URIs for concepts, that comes close to satisfying (or at least not
> prohibiting satisfaction of) both abstract and pragmatic considerations.
> 
> So, help!
> 
> Al.
> 
> 
> ---
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Building R1 Room 1.60
> Fermi Avenue
> Chilton
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
>>[mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
>>Sent: 20 September 2004 22:10
>>To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
>>Subject: pls keep Concepts and documents disjoint
>>
>>
>>
>>Regarding
>>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/
>>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/20040504/
>>
>>This example:
>>
>> <skos:Concept rdf:about="http:/example.com/Concept/0001"/>
>>
>>uses a hash-less http URI for a concept. I recommend against
>>that. I recommend that you allow people to use hash-less
>>http URIs for documents, and that you keep documents
>>disjoint from Concepts.
>>
>>
>>While no widely adopted standard compells you to do this,
>>the HTTP specification suggests that a hashless http URI
>>denotes a "network resource"
>>  http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.2.2
>>
>>and some members of the W3C TAG have argued this position
>>in dicussion of issue httpRange-14
>>  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>>
>>
>>
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 13:51:15 UTC