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

Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
>> From:  Pierre-Antoine Champin
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/link#obsoletes 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
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/link#uri , e.g. :obsoleteUri and :preferedUri,
>> all ranging to xsd:anyURI .
> 
> I like the idea of :obsoleteUri, presumably to be used like this:
> 
>      <http://example/new-term>
>          :obsoleteUri "http://example/old-term"^^xsd:anyURI .
> 
> which would mean the exact same thing as:
> 
>      <http://example/old-term>
>          :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.

fair enough. But as you point out, I think that :obsoleteUri would work
with a clean semantics.

  Pierre-Antoine

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 13:21:04 UTC