- From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
- Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:57:53 +0100
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi All, We've been using meaningfully-named URIs at work for a while, and after 9 months I'm finding them difficult to keep totally persistent. E.g. we store an inventory of applications, but every so often the name of an application changes, and when it does the old URI doesn't make sense any more. People (or rather automated RDF generation systems) start using new URIs to represent the same thing, and it all starts to decay a little. OWL should be able to take care of this, but currently none of our systems have OWL inference engines. The main problem isn't with the URIs themselves, but with the fact that we've got into the habit of expecting to be able to read them ourselves. When the URI text doesn't correspond to the 'thing' anymore, it niggles. I'm now considering using opaque numbers in URIs to represent things - e.g. http://sw.example.com/2003/01/application/23 - and am wondering if other people do this and what their experiences are. In particular, what would be the advantages/disadvantages of working in a world where URIs contain little human-readable information? Cheers, Phil
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 04:59:29 UTC