Re: namespaces backup

2011/8/24 Alvaro Graves <alvaro@graves.cl>

> Not sure what you mean. The problem is that the URIs in the
> ontology/vocabulary are not dereferenceable?


No. I'm talking about availability of RDF models in the practice, more than
a conceptual or theoretical aspect.


> In general, I would say the idea of replicating a vocabulary is a bad
> practice: Even is you use owl:sameAs, owl:equivalentProperty and
> owl:equivalentClass to map your new version to the old version, it will be
> confusing for a lot of people who wants to use your data.
>

I know, this is the reason of this open question.

Bests,


> ----
> Alvaro Graves
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Francisco Cifuentes <
> francisco.cifuentes@weso.es> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I'm currently working in projects related with LOD in the legislative
>> scope for the Chilean government, and i think i've detected a problem that
>> probably more than someone has had.
>>
>> What happens when an ontology is not available in the URI of their
>> namespace?
>> I say this because ideally, we need our "distributed the domain model" for
>> validate our data in diferent contexts, for instance using a tool like
>> Tabulator.
>>
>> For these cases i'm thinking in some solutions such as replicate the
>> ontology in a own URI (if the ontology licence it allows) or define in some
>> way alternative prefixes (an idea?), ensuring (in a greater degree) the
>> availability of the models.
>>
>> I will be grateful of receiving suggestions about this problem.
>> Bests,
>>
>> --
>> Francisco Cifuentes-Silva
>> ------------------------------------
>> WESO Research Group
>> Facultad de Ciencias
>> Universidad de Oviedo
>> http://www.bcn.cl
>> http://www.weso.es
>> http://twitter.com/fcifuentes
>>
>
>


-- 
Francisco Cifuentes-Silva
------------------------------------
WESO Research Group
Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad de Oviedo
Tel: +34 985103397
http://www.weso.es
http://twitter.com/fcifuentes