W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > May 2012

Re: UDEF Representation in RDF

From: Ronald P. Reck <rreck@rrecktek.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:40:39 -0400
Message-ID: <4FBCF6E7.60300@rrecktek.com>
To: Chris Harding <c.harding@opengroup.org>
CC: All UDEF Interested Parties <udef@opengroup.org>, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, public-esw-thes@w3.org, "richard.parent" <richard.parent@servicesquebec.gouv.qc.ca>, Alan Doniger <alan.doniger@gmail.com>
Chris,

On 05/23/2012 09:21 AM, Chris Harding wrote:
> Hi, Ronald -
>
> IRIs would certainly be more general than URIs. Isn't there a problem, though, that we would want to use the IRI to locate resources in HTTP requests, but this is not allowed for in the HTTP specification?
>
>> 6. An HTTP GET request to the base URI shall return a set of RDF statements about the vocabulary. (The precise nature of these statements is to be determined.)
>
> I guess that a way round this is to allow URIs as identifiers, but have the resources retrieved by HTTP requests that use URIs that encode the IRIs. I'm not familiar with the detailed issues here. Do you know whether this is normal practice?
>

No, I am afraid I am not well versed enough to speak authoritatively. I 
do know that previously I have been in a situation where we had used 
URIs in our datamodel but later wish we had used IRI's.

> I don't think that either UDEF or SKOS distinguishes between different kinds of narrowing. (I stand subject to correction on this.)

If UDEF does not make this distinction then the topic is moot. One might 
have adopted a SKOS compliant convention that preserved it had it existed.

-Ronald P. Reck
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 14:41:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:15 UTC