Re: "undefined" URI scheme

> I think such a proposal should first be discussed in the RDF community

Do they have an official place where to discuss these things?

 
 

Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 at 11:29 AM
From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "Laura Morales" <lauretas@mail.com>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
Subject: Re: "undefined" URI scheme
Hello Laura,

On 2018/11/09 19:07, Laura Morales wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to suggest the creation of a new "undefined" URI scheme. It would be useful for any property that has to be defined as a URI, such as with RDF, but such property doesn't fit in any existing scheme nor has any well defined meaning associated with it like for example that of an RDF ontology. Roughly, the meaning would be that there exists such property but which meaning/scheme/context is not defined, so the user using it can interpret it however he likes, possibly by guessing the meaning.
>
> Example: <undefined:sensor-1>
> <undefined:length/vh>
>
> The closest thing to this that I could find is the <tag:taggingEntity:specific> scheme but the problem is that with this scheme the "taggingEntity" is mandatory, I cannot use for example <tag:sensor-1>. So I guess making the "taggingEntity" optional could also work instead of defining a new scheme, although <undefined:> would be more clear in my opinion.
>
> Thanks and sorry I've never contributed to this list before so I hope my request makes sense.

I can understand where this comes from. But I think the dangers are big
that more than one person would use <undefined:sensor-1>, with different
meanings. That could wreck havoc with RDF. I think such a proposal
should first be discussed in the RDF community, and brought here later
when it's clearer what the exact semantics in RDF are.

Regards, Martin.

Received on Friday, 9 November 2018 12:13:09 UTC