- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 01:24:07 +0200
- To: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
An auxiliary question to Phil's - are dates in URIs actually useful? (beyond reducing the number of files in a directory ;-) Phil Dawes wrote: >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 > > > > > -- ---- Raw http://dannyayers.com
Received on Saturday, 3 April 2004 18:24:52 UTC