- From: Houghton,Andrew <houghtoa@oclc.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:53:24 -0400
- To: "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
- Cc: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Erik Hetzner > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 03:51 PM > To: public-lld > Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical > Composition > > If resources are constrained to having one rdf:type, then we are going > to create many new, unnecessary URIs, as Ross says above, breaking the > web architecture best practice: > > A URI owner SHOULD NOT associate arbitrarily different URIs with the > same resource. [1] > > 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases This is a gross overstatement of the Web Architecture best practice... For example, a foaf:Person and a skos:Concept are *different* resources. In many ways they behave at the Web Architecture level as variant representations of a generic resource. In linked data terms the Real-World Object for the conceptual thing has a URI and the Web Documents for the foaf:Person and skos:Concept variant representations have separate URIs. The Web Document URIs *are not* URI aliases, they are separate resources unto themselves, as described by the TAG GenericResources-53 decision or the TAG finding that came out of the decision [1]. A URI alias, as described by your reference applies to creating multiple URIs, for example, to the Web Document describing the skos:Concept variant representation. My prior message clearly shows that I wasn't creating URI aliases for either the foaf:Person or skos:Concept and the analogy to the TAG GenericResources-53 decision insures that individuals are not conflated at the ontological level just as you shouldn't conflate Web Documents at the Web Architecture level. [1] <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html> Andy.
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 20:54:22 UTC