Re: In defence of 404 ...

Eric
> I don't know if that's what Bernard would call elegant :), but what
> about defining T1 in both DOC1 and DOC2 with a xml:base equal to DOC
> (which means that in both DOC1 and DOC2, the identifier for #T1 is
> neither DOC1#T1 nor DOC2#T1 but DOC#T1) and using a placeholder at the
> address DOC#T1 with links (using rdfs:seeAlso or whatever) toward DOC1
> and DOC2?
> (Note that the mechanism can be adapted to slash URIs.)
>   
You mean e.g at http://rdf.insee.fr/geo/DEP_05
you would get a placeholder containing no formal description beyond 
things like
rdfs:seeAlso http://rdf.insee.fr/geo/regions-2003.rdf#DEP_05
rdfs:seeAlso http://rdf.insee.fr/geo/departements-2003.rdf#DEP_05
> That keeps DOC1 and DOC2 "equally normative". Applications which want to
> use them directly can do it and applications which don't have a clue
> where they can find information about DOC#T1 can dereference this URI to
> get a first idea where that can look. 
>
> I see that as the equivalent of RDDL for namespace URIs: you use the URI
> to publish a hint for applications that have no idea what the namespace
> is about.
>
> Would that be acceptable for both of you?
>   
I buy it.
> The last solution if this doesn't work for you could be to use either
> non HTTP URIs or even anonymous RDF nodes and a
> owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. Seems to be an overkill to me since in
> this case we have a central authority which can define URIs but the
> INSEE code is a perfect candidate for being an
> owl:InverseFunctionalProperty...
>   
Hmm. Not sure I would like that solution.

Bernard

Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 16:08:32 UTC