- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:13:10 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On Wednesday 26 November 2008, John Graybeal wrote: > Do you think the argument is mostly settled, or would you agree that > duplicating a massive set of URIs for 'local technical > simplification' is a bad practice? (In which case, is the question > just a matter of scale?) I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I feel that this is a question that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is important that if you state that two things are owl:sameAs (or some slightly weaker statement), it is important that the two things are in fact the same. When publishing larger data sets, it is hard to say with sufficient certainty that this is the case. Thus, I feel that the best practice is to create new URIs for each thing. Stating that things are the same should be left to a separate process. One should be aware of the extra complexity that is caused by this; you need an extra triple in your SPARQL query, which can also reduce query engine performance. If you are building applications based on linked data rather than publishing large data sets, I feel it is better to reuse URIs rather than create your own, if you plan to publish your URIs at some point. In some cases, you may not use a lot of concepts and in every case a human is involved, thus you know that what is meant by the concept identified by a given URI. In other cases, you use somebody else's URI and say that "whatever they mean by this concept, I mean too". This covers most of the cases I think most users of linked data will meet. Kjetil -- Kjetil Kjernsmo Programmer / Astrophysicist / Ski-orienteer / Orienteer / Mountaineer kjetil@kjernsmo.net Homepage: http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/ OpenPGP KeyID: 6A6A0BBC
Received on Friday, 28 November 2008 12:22:29 UTC