- From: Jan Wielemaker <wielemak@science.uva.nl>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:46:24 +0200
- To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, Guus Schreiber <guus@few.vu.nl>
Mark, I agree with your summary. In addition: > Note that the URIs for instances of Synsets, WordSenses and Words, as > well as the URIs of classes and properties are in both proposals > effectively in different namespaces (although there is a relationship > between them). I am not sure this is a good idea after all, but it at > least is a simple way of preventing URI clashes, e.g. between the word > antonym and the property antonym. Another option is to create property > names that definately do not conflict with words, e.g. by introducing a > prefix. Then we can put everything in one namespace. E.g. with URIs > > - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/synset-bank-noun-1 > - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/wordsense-bank-noun-1 > - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/word-bank > - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/schema-participleOf > > I am seeking input to decide between these two options. I'm in favour of one namespace. It is after all one `document' and as all resources are controlled by one entity (you :-) you can avoid name-clashes. I don't see what you gain using four, while the redundancy this introduces is definitely a loss. Possibly two (one for the schema and one for the data) makes sense as well. > As an aside, it turned out that the Recipes in [2] do not cover exactly > the WN case, namely serving a large set of (small) files (which is a > straightforward way to implement CBDs). We actually need a variant of > Recipe 2 or 5 where the whole vocabulary is not in one RDF file. Whats a CBD? Its not mentioned in [2]. Finally you gave the motivation for the / :-) Anyway, using / is still wrong. Not sure how, but this problem must be solved otherwise. Of course, unless you propose to revise XML/RDF and preferably also XML namespace handling :-) Cheers --- Jan > Thanks to Jan and Ralph for extensive discussions on these topics. > > Kind regards, > Mark. > > > [1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion > [2]http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/ > [3]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion-20060202 > [4]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0087
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 16:51:18 UTC