- From: Martin Hepp (UIBK) <martin.hepp@uibk.ac.at>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:31:16 +0100
- To: KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
- CC: Peter F Brown <peter@pensive.eu>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>, Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>, public-sweo-ig@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org
To me, the cleanest approach of reusing the huge set of consensual identifiers for non-information resources that Wikipedia URIs are would be to import them into a clean new namespace and link back from those to the original Wikipedia URIs via rdfs:seeAlso. Martin KANZAKI Masahide wrote: > agreed that terminology is confusing and causes many troubles ;-) > > Per spec, an information resource that "provides some kind of > compelling and unambiguous indication of the identity of a subject to > humans" is a 'subject indicator', which is 'a proxy for the thing' in > your term if I understand you correctly. > > Also per spec, "The address of a subject indicator is called a subject > identifier", i.e., if an wikipedia page is a PSI (indicator), its URI > is a PSId (identifier). PSI is a resource, not a URI. > > * > > btw, I've mis-understood the requirement I mentioned before: spec > requires that PSI must "explicitly state the unique URI" (not > explicitly state "that URI is to be used as its PSId", which I've > thought). Hence, an wikipedia page could be a PSI. > > cheers, >
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 16:31:37 UTC