What's in a name - Part 4 Comment 1
|
| What's in a name - Part 4 |
Richard Cyganiak, 7 January 2005 17:26 CET
Good writeup! A couple of points:
The "overloaded fragment identifier" problem is not really much of a problem. The URI http://semantic.nodix.net/person#Plato can very well be both "a section about Plato in a web page" and "an RDF resource representing Plato in an RDF document". When a web browser asks for the URL, it can be served the web page; when a semantic web agent asks, it can be served the RDF document (through HTTP content negotiation), thus pretty much avoiding the problem.
I'd argue that the anonymous node approach is the right one in many cases. Often, there's no requirement for your stuff being referencable from the outside. In these cases, using anonymous nodes is fine and may save some headaches.
In the long run, maybe there will be sites publishing directories with RDF information about movies or philosophers. Maybe there will be a search engine that lets you search for URIs representing those concepts. Then you can simply use that URI, and don't have to make up your own.
You're mixing up foaf:interest and foaf:topic_interest. The former simply doesn't have the meaning you assume in your examples. Arguably, the FOAF people should have defined them differently, but there's nothing we can do about this now.
I'm looking forward to the last two parts of your series.
The "ov … Good writeup! A couple of points:
The "overloaded fragment identifier" problem is not really much of a problem. The URI http://semantic.nodix.net/person#Plato can very well be both "a section about Plato in a web page" and "an RDF resource representing Plato in an RDF document". When a web browser asks for the URL, it can be served the web page; when a semantic web agent asks, it can be served the RDF document (through HTTP content negotiation), thus pretty much avoiding the problem.
I'd argue that the anonymous node approach is the right one in many cases. Often, there's no requirement for your stuff being referencable from the outside. In these cases, using anonymous nodes is fine and may save some headaches.
In the long run, maybe there will be sites publishing directories with RDF information about movies or philosophers. Maybe there will be a search engine that lets you search for URIs representing those concepts. Then you can simply use that URI, and don't have to make up your own.
You're mixing up foaf:interest and foaf:topic_interest. The former simply doesn't have the meaning you assume in your examples. Arguably, the FOAF people should have defined them differently, but there's nothing we can do about this now.
I'm looking forward to the last two parts of your series.ward to the last two parts of your series. +
