On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 01:52, Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
> I don't think that's how URIs are used in the RDF world.
I work in the RDF world, so I'm pretty sure we use URI as identifiers
for things. The article I linked to was written before the current
practice of using content negotiation in HTTP, which I consider a hack
of sorts. But I'm still not actually sure what you mean by "they don't
use URIs that way." What way?
> It's not a matter
> of using an existing URL for an organization, but of creating controlled
> lists with specific meanings. I haven't ever seen anyone advocating the use
> of the URL that you list above.
Are you referring to my example of the UN? Of course we would use
that. If people aren't using shared URIs the whole point of the
Semantic *Web* falls apart. It is supped to be one massive shared
triplet-store, where "sameness" / identity is in the equality of URI
strings.
> So, for example, in the library world, we
> will have an authority record for the UN and the URI that we use will be the
> URI for that authority record.
That's just shared data, not shared triplets. When it goes into
triplet (or tuple) stores, they get converted into triplets of URIs
(for entities) or values, and then it becomes important to match up
with the closest shared URI. How else are we to do this?
Puzzled,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Sun Oct 25 2009 - 16:15:14 EDT