Yeah, that's a confusing thing. The RDF world seems to like using hash
URIs to represent things. As far as RDF is concerned, the URI's
uniqueness is determined including the hash. Two URIs identical except
that they end in two different hashes are two different identifiers as
far as RDF is concerned.
I used to find this confusing too. And yes, it is a little bit
different than a naive approach to "cool URIs" or "REST" might lead you
to believe -- there are actually several ways that RDF practices don't
exactly match REST practices, not just this fairly minor one (which
arguably isn't one at all).
As far as where you can resolve to get information about what, for
instance, http://id.loc.gov/authorities#conceptScheme stands for...
that still confuses me a bit too.
Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Ross Singer <rossfsinger_at_GMAIL.COM>:
>
>
> Thanks, Ross. This probably reflects a misunderstanding on my part
> around "cool uris." From reading the cool uris document, I assumed
> that these two represent the same resource but with multiple names,
> therefore there is one scheme:
>
>
>> <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/authorities#conceptScheme"/>
>> <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/authorities#geographicNames"/>
>>
>
> It appears I may be taking the stripping of the hash too literally. In
> any case, is there a document that defines the "concept schemes" and
> what they refer to? Do they have an RDF representation somewhere? I
> feel like there was a lot of thinking that went on in the development
> of the LCSH vocabulary, but I'm not able to extract it from the code
> itself.
>
> kc
>
Received on Wed Nov 11 2009 - 14:15:27 EST