- From: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:31:21 -0400
- To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Cc: "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "jeremy.tandy@gmail.com" <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Whoops, we just slid back a bit. We have discernment of real world phenomena (URI #1) and then representation in an information resource (URI #2). Simon was mentioning the addition of different suffixes for different serializations of that resource. This can look like a different URI but isn't really a separate identification, rather an affordance on dereferencing the information resource, e.g. same feature data as GML or a shape file. It's an alternative to HTTP format headers. Josh Joshua Lieberman, Ph.D. Principal, Tumbling Walls Consultancy Tel/Direct: +1 627-431-6431 jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com > On Oct 22, 2015, at 07:57, Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de> wrote: > > Simon, > > On Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:39 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: > >>>> Does that mean that if I want to express this in RDF, I need three URIs? >> One for the real-world-thing, one for the feature and one for the feature >> representation? >> >> ➢ Hopefully you're a little less confused. In my mind we have just two URIs: >> o URI identifying 'Thing' >> o URI identifying 'description of Thing' / 'Feature' / 'graph' > > OK, then we're on the same page. That the individual document/serialisation might need its own URI is clear, but at an abstract level, we agree that we can use the same URI for "feature" and "feature representation". > > Thanks, > > Lars (ignoring the discussion if every "thing" has an associated "feature" and if it make sense to say "feature==description")
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2015 12:32:15 UTC