- From: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:42:05 -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 writes: > > 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 This is true. On the other hand, it's not clear to me what advantage <http://example.com/58#concept> has over <http://example.com/58>. This is one of the Great Unresolved Issues of RDF, so it's probably best for SKOS to be neutral. On the other hand, there are quite a few extant vocabularies that don't use fragment IDs, e.g. FOAF and Dublin Core. -- David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com> <http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/>
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 01:45:40 UTC