Re: Linking back to

On 08/06/2009 20:59, "Toby A Inkster" <> wrote:

> On 8 Jun 2009, at 12:22, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>> provides
>> 16 equivalent URIs (including the original one).
>> At I've gathered painfully only 10
>> of those :-)
>> But now that is alive, why should I care maintaining
>> those sameAs links locally?
> I imagine that found many of those links at
You imagine right.
Or at least to start with, as I recall that was one of the first sites that
started this particular hobby, when I realised that we had generated a bunch
of language URIs ourselves, and I wanted to link to the others.

In fact Bernard raises an issue dear to my heart, which is that publishers
of Linked Data should be able to do just that; and that others can be
facilitated in providing and maintaining the links, in particular without
putting any load on the data publisher to be troubled with any of it.
These sort of separations are good engineering practice. I have long liked
the idea that the linking is knowledge of a separate sort to the substantive
content. It certainly often has different temporal characteristics.

So I think what Bernard means is that he needs reliable service(s) that will
look after his hard-won links, and allow him to maintain the links where
>> Using rdfs:seeAlso is as usual good but not precise enough. Maybe
>> could provide a minimal vocabulary to describe its URI,
>> such as some property
>>     sameas:hub
>> html?uri=
> Perhaps better:
> <>
>    rdfs:seeAlso
>      <> .
I think that cygri's email thread ended in a similar conclusion?
I confess that the discussion has helped me to understand rdfs:seeAlso.
I had tried to understand it through the semantics.
But now I can see that from the point of view of the consumer it is just an
#include <>
(if you will pardon the C syntax!)
That is, if I am following my nose bringing stuff into my local RDF cache to
play with, and I hit one of these (?s rdfs:seeAlso ?o), I can decide to add
the RDF resolved by ?o to the mix. In fact, I don't even care what the ?s
is, other than as part of the decision whether to follow ?o or not.
I guess everyone else already understood this. :-)
> <>
>    rdf:type
>      sameas:Hub .
Not sure why this would be needed.
But can be done.
By the way, I think the URI should be:
To allow the conneg.
> As this will work in existing tools that understand rdfs:seeAlso.
Which is always good.
> --
> Toby A Inkster
> <>
> <>

Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 20:28:38 UTC