RE: Obsoleting URIs [was: URIs and Unique IDs]

> From:  Pierre-Antoine Champin
> does indeed raise problems:
> according to its comment, "[The terms] are synonymous, but subject is
> preferred to the object. Logically similar to owl:sameAs, but not
> symmetric."
> I'm not sure what "logically similar" implies, but if the terms are
> synonymous, then
>   :a link:obsoletes :b .
> should imply
>   :b link:obsoletes :a .
> which makes link:obsoletes defacto symetrical.
> In fact, links:obsoletes obviously applies to *the URI* of
> the resource rather than the resource itself, so David's second proposal
> sounds more appropriate. Unfortunately, it is not valid RDF...

Yes, if there were one simple thing I could change about the RDF specification it would be to remove that silly prohibition against having a literal as the subject of an assertion.

> A possible solution seems to rather use subproperties of
> , e.g. :obsoleteUri and :preferedUri,
> all ranging to xsd:anyURI .

I like the idea of :obsoleteUri, presumably to be used like this:

         :obsoleteUri "http://example/old-term"^^xsd:anyURI .

which would mean the exact same thing as:

         :obsoleteUri "http://example/old-term"^^xsd:anyURI .

because <http://example/old-term> owl:sameAs <http://example/new-term> .  The semantics would be clean.

However, I do not think :preferredUri would work very well, because it seems non-monotonic: the URI that is preferred today may not be the URI that is preferred tomorrow.

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |

Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.

Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 20:26:02 UTC