- From: Carl Mattocks <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:39:13 -0500 (EST)
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, public-esw-thes@w3.org
As a believer in not trying to reengineer stuff that is not broken .. I also agree that it would be good to encourage publishers of terms in controlled vocabularies to use a direct non-fragmenting URI. .. However, if a publisher did not employ this exemplary approach (to protect their investment?) then (of course) an indirect URI must be used. Thus for pragmatic purposes I encourage the use of indirect identifiers as an architectural approach. <quote who="Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com"> >> I suggest you follow Dublin Core's exemplary lead and use >> URIs without fragment identifiers to identify your terms. >> You'll be in very good company, and such an approach is >> fully compatible with the PR version of AWWW and every >> semantic web spec produced by the W3C to date. > > To be more specific, and more accurate regarding my > original meaning, I suggest that you use 'http:' URIs > without fragment identifiers to identify your terms. -- Carl Mattocks co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC CEO CHECKMi v/f (usa) 908 322 8715 www.CHECKMi.com Semantically Smart Compendiums (AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi
Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 16:30:36 UTC