- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 11:59:08 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On 5/19/11 10:32 AM, Whitley, Zachary C. wrote: > Can't we just say that there is a spectrum of methods for producing identifiers that have certain tradeoffs and to use the method that best fits your use case? Yes! And that we have Identifiers that have varying behaviors driven by pragmatic goals. > If you're in the machine readable camp you can just ignore any human readability aspect of the identifier and just treat it as the monkey who just randomly typed Shakespeare. Since there's a no unique names assumption we can have multiple identifiers so why not both machine and human identifiers if that's what you want with appropriate sameAs, equivalentClass and equivalentProperty statements? This is the conundrum, we are not talking about how you can have both i.e., machine oriented identifiers for naming entities and human (hack-able) identifiers for accessing their representations. We are inadvertently doing a one size fits all by pushing for an idealistic pattern when the target realm is duplicitous (Name/Address ambiguity courtesy of HTTP scheme URIs for Entity Names and Data Object Addresses). -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 15:59:38 UTC