Re: Fwd: Re: Document fragment vocabulary

hello sebastian.

On 2011-08-16 09:36 , Sebastian Hellmann wrote:
> The problem is not with our modelling. We are working on a format for
> NLP tools, that everyone can then implement. So the modelling should be
> up to the developer.>

i don't understand that. if you're working on the format, doesn't that 
imply you're defining the model? developers then simply implement the 
model that is defined by your format, right?

> I think the core of the problem is, that the uris
> should serve two use cases: 1. serve as RDF subjects and allow for
> LinkedData without too much overhead 2. highlight it in a browser/client
> We might assume equality of both and just allow in the NIF format[1],
> that developers can use both as they like, but then when querying
> LinkedData they should replace all # with ? and vice versa for
> browser/highlighting clients.

i don't think i can follow you here, but the substitution rules you are 
mentioning don't look very nice. URI-wise, # and ? serve different 
purposes, and creating such a substitution rule to me looks as if you're 
pretty much guaranteeing that things will break for anybody not aware of 
your special rules. if for passing around URIs you also have to pass 
around special rules how to handle them, that's not a good sign.

> Would you think this is too hacky? It might also be that the whole
> problem is rather hypothetical at the moment, so # might be the choice
> now and then we will just wait until the problems arise...

i think i don't fully understand what you're trying to do and what 
you're proposing to solve your problem, but like i said above, the 
special handling rules look a little suspicious. maybe michael has a 
better idea of your scenario and can help.

cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-6432253 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |

Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 21:59:51 UTC