Re: "Publish the policies followed when coining URIs"

> Remaining problems, in my opinion:
>
>> >>    * Version policy for the resources identified by the URIs.
>>
>> lost version policy for the namespace itself
>
> The problem here, as I see it, is that the text refers both to "vocabulary" and
> to "namespace" -- the latter sometimes as a synonym for "vocabulary" and
> sometimes for a URI -- i.e., the base URI used to "derive" the URIs (as in:
> "policies for the namespaces used to derive those URIs").
>
> If "namespace" is being used to refer to a URI, it does not make sense to talk
> about "versioning" the namespace, because a URI is not versioned.  (A URI may
> contain "versioning information", though that is not best practice for RDF
> vocabularies, but even then, a URI with new versioning information is not a
> "version" of an older URI - it is simply a new URI.)

I guess 'namespace' is used in the sense of 'vocabulary with URIs' (as
opposed to another kind of vocabulary / metadata elements set that
wouldn't be designed for Linked Data).

>
> I think the ambiguity can be resolved by replacing "namespace" with
> "vocabulary" in:
>
>    BEFORE> Version control for individual URIs and the namespace itself.
>    AFTER>  Version control for a vocabulary and its terms.

seems fine to me.

>
> and also in:
>
>    BEFORE> Extensibility of use of the namespace by smaller organizations.
>    AFTER>  Extensibility of the vocabulary by other organizations.  (*PROPOSED*)
>
> However, I agree with Emma when she says it is unclear what is meant
> in this sentence:
>
> Emma> "* Extensibility of use of the namespace by smaller organizations."
> Emma> I'm not sure what was meant here, but feel uncomfortable with removing
> Emma> it altogether.
>
> The sentence seems to be saying that the base URI for a vocabulary might be
> used by "smaller organizations" (why "smaller"?) to coin URIs for (their own?)
> terms, and that this use is "extensible".  If so, I don't quite get it.
>
> If the point were "extensibility of the vocabulary by other organizations", I
> can at least think of scenarios that would fit (e.g., AGROVOC extended by
> editorial teams in India and China).  Or even: "Use of the namespace by other
> organizations" (for when the AGROVOC team in India adds a new URI using the
> AGROVOC namespace).

Going back to [1], maybe what was intended was :
"Some libraries or library organizations should play a leading role in
curating the RDF representations of library metadata elements,
including URIs, in a similar way to existing patterns of standards
maintenance, where a specific organization acts on behalf of the
community. Such roles should operate in a more cross-domain
environment, to reflect the networking infrastructure of linked data.
Agencies responsible for the creation of catalogue records and other
metadata, such as national bibliographies, on behalf of national and
international library communities should take a leading role in
creating URIs for the resources described, as a priority over
publishing entire records as linked data, to help local libraries
avoid creating duplicate URIs for the same resource."

But I can't really find this idea is the current recommendation.



>
>> >> --  Removed reference to "Good practice guidelines and recipes for constructing
>> >>    ontologies and structured vocabularies." -- out of place here.
>>
>> Not sure it's irrelevant : best practices would be needed when we're
>> talking about providing URIs for a vocabulary which wasn't primarily
>> designed for the Semantic Web (e.g. RDA)
>
> I do not think the point it irrelevant; it just seems out of place in a
> paragraph that focuses on managing RDF vocabularies and URIs.  Maybe it could
> be turned into a full sentence and added to the end of the point on "Develop
> library data standards that are compatible with Linked Data" [2].
>

Point taken, it would make sense.

>
>
>
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_recommendations_page#Identify_and_link

Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 16:43:20 UTC