W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2015

Re: Sustainable Codes vs Volatile URIs Re: URIs / Ontology for Physical Units and Quantities

From: Peter Krauss <ppkrauss@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 08:42:59 -0300
Message-ID: <CAHEREtuXApydcm6W4X=79JhOXPDncSd59Q3Y9teZQFGyTLUQBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
2015-05-07 5:36 GMT-03:00 Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>:

> (...) But to put in bluntly, in many cases, well-maintained codes for
> standardized identities (languages, countries, towns, units ...) are more
> sustainable ways to share identities than URIs,
>


Perhaps I am not understanding, but there are some conceptual mistake?
 "codes" in this sense, for me, are URNs; and URNs are URIs... Incremental
examples:

* "codes" are things controlled at https://github.com/datasets

* the code of "Avestan" is "ae" in
https://github.com/datasets/language-codes

* in my context (ex. my house or my LAN) I can use my URN definition,
*   "urn:x-ok-datasets:language-codes:ae"  *
    that is the "alpha2" column in
https://github.com/datasets/language-codes/blob/master/data/language-codes.csv

    and the "URN Resolution" is the conversion from "alpha2" column to the
"English" column.
    ... And so on... In the same URN-x-ok schema are many other code types,
    like "*urn:x-ok-datasets:country-codes:us*" defined by
https://github.com/datasets/country-codes/
    we are not hostages of IANA, we can use URN for any code.

so, codes are URNs ... We can agree about the "*code is URN*" assertion?
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2015 11:43:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 7 May 2015 11:43:28 UTC