W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > March 2009

Re: blog: semantic dissonance in uniprot

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:01:36 +1000
Message-ID: <a1be7e0e0903232301i22c81c31ga8f7d8a9e5ba4198@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, W3C HCLSIG hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
2009/3/24 Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>:
> If you are going to honor the Identity principle on the Web, in an
> unobtrusive manner (i.e., leverage ubiquity of HTTP) there is no way around
> the above.

I never thought of it as honour. The large number of ideals
surrounding the redirect law still don't impress me. The linked rdf
web is coming along despite these ideals increasing the general apathy
to the whole concept so far IMO. The fact that this debate is still
going is worrying, but hopefully it won't stop people discovering the
usefulness of shared resolvable identifiers which form the real basis
to the usefulness of linked rdf.

Just curious though, how is it *actually* obtrusive not to implement a
redirect if ones ideals tell one that there is no functional
difference in the nature of the resource whether its representation
was derived from the result of a redirect or not? If people want to
track provenance as Michel says, they can either recognise that some
triples have predicates which relate to provenance and others are
independent of the provenance, or they can store the provenance
information in a different graph and query across the two if needed.
That part is up to the interested end-user and really shouldn't raise
the entry bar to new producers.

Cheers,

Peter Ansell
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 06:02:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:41 UTC