- From: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue@figoblog.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 05:51:55 +0200
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: public-lld@w3.org
> > We can obviously change the wording. But I still am not sure what we are > promoting in terms of prioritizing the creation of URIs. Can we use Tom's > wording? > > "Very broadly, the "library world", along with standards > developers such as W3C, FOAF, and DCMI should work on assigning > URIs to properties and classes. But creators of specific > Linked Data projects should be concerned first and foremost > with _creating_ URIs for their things -- the "instances" about > they want to make statements -- then re-use URIs for properties > and classes (when possible) in order to make those statements." +1 for Tom's wording : great summary, as usual ;-) Emma > > kc > > Quoting Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>: > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote: >>> >>> I think we're agreeing that "assigning URIs" is a key point >>> but that for the sake of readers we need to distinguish "URIs >>> for properties and classes" from "URIs for dataset items >>> (instances)". >> >> Nicely put Tom. I second Jeff's recommendation to at least reference >> ABox and TBox to ground the more library friendly definitions wherever >> that may happen: glossary, etc. >> >> //Ed >> >> > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet > > >
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 03:52:23 UTC