RE: SKOS dodges the identity crisis?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Carl Mattocks []
> Sent: 19 November, 2004 16:39
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
> Cc:;; 
> Subject: RE: SKOS dodges the identity crisis?
> 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. ..

Fair enough. I don't quite grok all that you wrote below. Perhaps
you could ellaborate on a few points...

>  However, if a publisher did not employ this exemplary approach (to
> protect their investment?) 

I don't quite follow you here. How would using URIrefs with
fragids protect an investment? What kind of investment? How
would using URIs without fragids result in a loss of investment?

Are you talking about existing vocabularies/URIs using fragids, or 
new vocabularies/URIs?

> then (of course) an indirect URI 
> must be used.
> Thus for pragmatic purposes I  encourage the use of indirect 
> identifiers
> as an architectural approach.

How do you see URIs with fragids being more of an "architectural
approach" than URIs without fragids? What do you mean by
"architectural approach"?



> <quote who="">
> >> 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
> v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
> Semantically Smart Compendiums

Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 07:21:31 UTC