- From: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:44:06 -0700
- To: public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Ah, never mind. I think I found the answer... Literal Key. Perhaps the other patterns should mention this and include Literal Key in the "Related" section? On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com> wrote: > (Thanks for the patterns book, BTW. I am finding them helpful and > thought-provoking.) > > re: Natural Keys and Patterned URIs - I am wondering about the > potential trade-offs between "manufacturing" a resource URI following > a "known algorithms" vs. "finding" a resource URI by querying a "known > relationship". > > e.g. say there is a URI for a specific auto. A natural key could be > based on its vehicle identification number (VIN), and so > "manufactured". > > Or the URI could be meaningless, or at least unknown, and the URI > could be "found" from a known "VIN" relationship in the ontology... > ?car <VIN> "xyz" > > Even if the URIs are meaningful, patterned, or natural, I kind of tend > to want to find them from relationships rather than manufacture them. > > Are there known pro's and con's either way? > > Thanks >
Received on Saturday, 10 April 2010 16:44:38 UTC