- From: Simon Cox <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:55:10 +0100
- To: "'Houghton,Andrew'" <houghtoa@oclc.org>, "'Antoine Isaac'" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Why 'equivalentClass'? Surely a person is an individual!? (cue quotes from Life of Brian). -------------------------------------------------------- Simon Cox European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy Tel: +39 0332 78 3652 Fax: +39 0332 78 6325 mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Houghton,Andrew Sent: Friday, 4 December 2009 18:26 To: Antoine Isaac Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org Subject: RE: Need advice on using same URI for SKOS and FOAF descriptions > From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] > Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 05:00 AM > To: Houghton,Andrew > Cc: SKOS > Subject: Re: Need advice on using same URI for SKOS and FOAF > descriptions > > The solution indeed lies in properly deciding whether you want to use > the same URI for the two views on the person, and if you are ready to > face all the consequences of it. Right that's what I'm trying to find out: what are the consequences of using the same Real-World Object (RWO) URI for both of these representations. My gut reaction was that the project is heading for troubled waters, but I don't know what would be lurking ahead, which is what I'm trying to find out. > I'd say that if you have several values for the same property for your > two "instances", that hints that your application requires distinct > individuals, and not conflating possibly incompatible information! I thought about this last night and a possible solution might be to do something like: <rdf:RDF> <foaf:Person rdf:about="http://example.org/person/1#foaf"> <foaf:name>person 1</foaf:name> <dc:date>1995</dc:date> <owl:equivalentClass rdf:resource="http://example.org/person/1" /> </foaf:Person> <skos:Concept rdf:about="http://example.org/person/1#skos"> <skos:prefLabel>person 1</skos:prefLabel> <dc:date>1996</dc:date> <owl:equivalentClass rdf:resource="http://example.org/person/1" /> </skos:Concept> </rdf:RDF> This keeps the project's FOAF and SKOS descriptions separate and I think it keeps the integrity of the RWO URI. If a user agent dereferences the FOAF or SKOS URI the server will see the RWO URI and can allow CONNEG so the user agent can get back the appropriate representation. What are your thoughts on using the hashed URIs for the different representations? Thanks, Andy.
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 07:55:55 UTC