- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:55:06 +0100
- To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi, On 7 April 2010 01:08:32 UTC+1, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote: > In my opinion, we should be recommending that people create new URI's > so that others have enough information to be able to choose whether to > go there based on the DNS authority or some other method, even if > there are new URI's created. Basically, I am pro, having multiple > URI's for things, based on who is publishing the information so that > the information can be discoverable without some external authority > authorising the statement to be discoverable. In the future, if and/or > when Linked Data is subsumed by some sort of Federated SPARQL > methodology as a best practice, it may be okay to reuse URI's, as > there may be some other mechanism of locating the statement using a > metadata repository. Until then, Linked Data URI's are the only widely > used method, and the resolution of the statement is necessarily > controlled by whoever controls the DNS authority. I think we have to recognise that there are multiple approaches and guide & educate people about the trade-offs involved. Personally I'm keen to see more reuse of identifiers and use of hypermedia to inter-link between different sources. I'd also prefer to see people publish more data, and if Annotation is a lower barrier to entry, then fine, we can create infrastructure to support that. It's important to recognise that even in your preferred scenario (Proxy URIs and Equivalence Linking) we still need more infrastructure to get the most from the data, e.g. SameAs.org. Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.dodds@talis.com http://www.talis.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 08:55:38 UTC