- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:06:41 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, connolly@w3.org
* Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2004-09-21 14:51+0100] > > 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 That's true, and DanC has made similar arguments promoting that model when we were discussing the Wordnet namespace I made, http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Water etc... Problem is that it is really pretty awful reading and writing RDF/XML in that idiom. Perhaps an alternate syntax could make it more bearable, but you currently need a distinct namespace declaration for each term used. This hurts my class-based wordnet hyponym vocab more than it hurts SKOS or the current SWBP wordnet design, since we get to make quite pretty looking XML with category words appearing as element names. I know RDF's designed for machines, but the 'RDF syntax sucks' objection is heard so frequently that I find it hard to ignore, from an outreach point of view. > > 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 RDF vocabs are inherently neutral regarding URI form, or even URIs vs bnodes, in instance data. That said, is good to have clear examples up front in docs, and people always copy from examples, so this might not be entirely sidesteppable. > 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. +1 Dan
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 14:06:42 UTC