Re: (Lost in the noise perhaps - so asking again) - Is a trailing slash 'better' than a trailing hash for vocabs namespace IRIs?

I see at least three different situations where one might want to utilize IRIs 
from a namespace:
1/ One is creating information about an independent resource, say about oneself.
2/ One is creating information about a small number of related resources, for 
example an ontology about automobiles.
3/ One is creating information about a large number of resources, as is done 
in, for example, Wikidata or Cyc.
These three situations may be best served by different best practices, so I 
don't see how any discussion of best practice can be complete without showing 
how best practice serves these situations as well as other common situations.

For what it's worth, my view is that in most cases the "defining" information 
should be (only) available in one source.  This is most important to me when 
creating ontologies, as the resources in an ontology are dependent on each 
other and it is not possible to provide "defining" information about just one 
resource in an ontology.

In some cases the entirety of the information may be too large for casual 
consumption.  In these cases I would reluctantly allow portions of the entire 
information source as the "defining" information for a resource, although I'm 
not at all keen on equating the "defining" information for a resource as those 
paths starting at the resource's IRI and only continuing until a non-blank 
object is reached.

As far as I can tell, hash vocabularies naturally provide for a single source 
of "defining" information as retrieving each vocabulary member results in the 
same document.   Slash vocabularies are more suited to separate sources of 
"defining" information although redirection could be used to return the same 
vocabulary-"defining" document for each element of the slash vocabulary.


peter

Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2022 15:22:06 UTC