Re: URLs in Data Working Draft

Amen! Amen! Amen! <sing>Hallelujah!</sing>. After over a decade of angels
dancing on pinheads, and coming dangerously close to reinventing the
topic/occurrence dichotomy with httprange-14, we once again find ourselves
back in the untidy but happy world of common sense. Well done TAG!

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Jeni Tennison <>wrote:

> Dear public-lod, RDF WG,
> Some of you will have seen that the First Public Working Draft of "URLs in
> Data" has been published by the TAG [1].
> This document is the outcome of the call for change proposals [2] for the
> TAG's 2005 decision on httpRange-14 [3].
> The document purposefully does not address the issue of what a URI
> 'identifies' or how to discover additional information about it (beyond
> best practice that has been documented elsewhere). It aims instead to
> clarify the circumstances in which different communities of practice may
> draw different conclusions about the content of a document on the web, and
> how to avoid this by having clear definitions for the properties you use
> when publishing data that uses URIs.
> For RDF and linked data, the implication is that applications should focus
> on the statements that are being asserted about a given URI in the data
> that they have (from whatever source) to determine what to do. To avoid
> misinterpretation and misuse, and particularly where there's the
> possibility of ambiguity (eg 'license' or 'creator'), vocabulary authors
> should state whether a given property applies to the content retrieved from
> the subject URI or to something that content describes.
> The TAG does not intend to work further on these issues in the immediate
> future, except to respond to and integrate comments on this document.
> Please send any comments on the document to
> Cheers,
> Jeni
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> --
> Jeni Tennison

Uche Ogbuji             
Founding Partner, Zepheira

Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 20:29:22 UTC