- From: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:43:58 +0100
- To: "'Patrick Stickler'" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hello "uri crisis" again :-) > I agree. Though I'm not sure that RDF *needs* to make a distinction > between the > three use cases Tom describes, since in all three cases, the > URI simply is a name denoting some resource, ... YES and IMHO: In this discussion my old idea of "Seperation by Ontology" did not show up so I will add it here: "Seperation by Ontology" means that you use a URI to identify both the document/resource at the indicated web-place and also the concept behind. When you then want to know some "http/html" specific stuff like "expiration date", you use the html:expire ontology from some HTML scheme. When the resource also describes f.e. a FOAF:Person, you can use FOAF:surname on it and it will work. So: The resource has mutliple types and can be viewed from different "dimensions", aka the different schemes. That also conforms to the RDF specification of multiple types ! This is a practical solution and anybody who did already implement somehting like it will agree on that, I hope. I encourage you, who are interested in the "uri crisis" discussion, to TRY OUT the different approaches and write some RDF with them and also do some querying. You will be surprised how complicated in practice the other approaches are. Here are some articles I find interesting about this topic. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/09/11/deviant.html http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/identitycrisis.html http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI Especially Booth has some good overview of the problem http://www.w3.org/2002/11/dbooth-names/dbooth-names_clean.htm greetings from Vienna, Leo Sauermann
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2004 05:52:14 UTC