<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fixing ambiguous concept URIs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris/</link>
	<description>A weblog by Richard Cyganiak</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:16:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fixing ambiguous concept URIs</title>
		<link>http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris/#comment-76761</link>
		<dc:creator>Fixing ambiguous concept URIs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:42:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris#comment-76761</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris Tags:&#160;rdf, uri, url, design, web(del.icio.us history) [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris" rel="nofollow">http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris</a> Tags:&nbsp;rdf, uri, url, design, web(del.icio.us history) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua Shinavier</title>
		<link>http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris/#comment-46793</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Shinavier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:29:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris#comment-46793</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Tim, it&#039;s nice to see someone defending the lowly hash URI.  Everything I&#039;ve read suggests that hash namespaces are the quick and dirty way to toss small, static RDF documents onto the web, while serious semantic web services use slash namespaces.  Personally, I much prefer the # when it comes to actually dereferencing and caching URIs, for the reason you mentioned.  What&#039;s more, many actual slash URIs out there do NOT redirect to the URI of the appropriate document; you&#039;re meant to guess their namespace and dereference that instead, so if you make the wrong choice, you get nothing.  Content negotiation using hash URIs (with each URI in its own hash namespace, using &quot;it&quot; or some other gimmick for the fragment identifier), seems to me to combine the best of both worlds, but maybe I shouldn&#039;t talk until I&#039;ve tried it.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim, it&#8217;s nice to see someone defending the lowly hash URI.  Everything I&#8217;ve read suggests that hash namespaces are the quick and dirty way to toss small, static RDF documents onto the web, while serious semantic web services use slash namespaces.  Personally, I much prefer the # when it comes to actually dereferencing and caching URIs, for the reason you mentioned.  What&#8217;s more, many actual slash URIs out there do NOT redirect to the URI of the appropriate document; you&#8217;re meant to guess their namespace and dereference that instead, so if you make the wrong choice, you get nothing.  Content negotiation using hash URIs (with each URI in its own hash namespace, using &#8220;it&#8221; or some other gimmick for the fragment identifier), seems to me to combine the best of both worlds, but maybe I shouldn&#8217;t talk until I&#8217;ve tried it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Berners-Lee</title>
		<link>http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris/#comment-12688</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Berners-Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:39:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris#comment-12688</guid>
		<description>Good post. Thank you, I think it explains it well.   There are indeed variou sreasons for choosing the # method or the 303 method.

When writing RDF (in N3 normaly) by hand, the # methd is very easy, and works well.  You naturally write in files of manageble size which are easily delivered over the net. The thing after the # is the local identifier in the file,
and you can add also som identifiers for other related things which are naturally described in the same file.

When a large set of identifiers are generated automaticaly, then the 303 method may make sense, but the # method will work too, even if every uri ends &quot;#it&quot;, which looks odd.  It is faster from the client&#039;s poiunt of view.

For example, the tabulator, which, like many things, looks up the ontology for each predicate or class term it comes across, has to look up every single Dublin Cote term (which has no #) like dc:title separately just to find each redirects to the same ontology file.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post. Thank you, I think it explains it well.   There are indeed variou sreasons for choosing the # method or the 303 method.</p>
<p>When writing RDF (in N3 normaly) by hand, the # methd is very easy, and works well.  You naturally write in files of manageble size which are easily delivered over the net. The thing after the # is the local identifier in the file,<br />
and you can add also som identifiers for other related things which are naturally described in the same file.</p>
<p>When a large set of identifiers are generated automaticaly, then the 303 method may make sense, but the # method will work too, even if every uri ends &#8220;#it&#8221;, which looks odd.  It is faster from the client&#8217;s poiunt of view.</p>
<p>For example, the tabulator, which, like many things, looks up the ontology for each predicate or class term it comes across, has to look up every single Dublin Cote term (which has no #) like dc:title separately just to find each redirects to the same ontology file.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Cyganiak</title>
		<link>http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris/#comment-12120</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Cyganiak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:42:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris#comment-12120</guid>
		<description>Chris, this time your analysis is wrong. In actual fact, there are two entities:

- Berlin the city (the thing itself; the concept)

- A document describing Berlin

Only cognitive scientists or cultural historians would bother to divide the first one into two distinct entities. I&#039;m not one of those, and therefore don&#039;t bother to make the distinction, and believe that the way I&#039;ve presented it is perfectly clear for the intended target audience.

If you have a good term for “those URIs that do not identify documents but other things, like cities or people or software projects“, a term that is understandable to non-experts, then please share. The best I could come up with was “concept URI”. And if you offer “entity URI” or “non-information resource URI“, then I shall personally lock you up in an ivory tower.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris, this time your analysis is wrong. In actual fact, there are two entities:</p>
<p>- Berlin the city (the thing itself; the concept)</p>
<p>- A document describing Berlin</p>
<p>Only cognitive scientists or cultural historians would bother to divide the first one into two distinct entities. I&#8217;m not one of those, and therefore don&#8217;t bother to make the distinction, and believe that the way I&#8217;ve presented it is perfectly clear for the intended target audience.</p>
<p>If you have a good term for “those URIs that do not identify documents but other things, like cities or people or software projects“, a term that is understandable to non-experts, then please share. The best I could come up with was “concept URI”. And if you offer “entity URI” or “non-information resource URI“, then I shall personally lock you up in an ivory tower.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Cyganiak</title>
		<link>http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris/#comment-12121</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Cyganiak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris#comment-12121</guid>
		<description>Leo, some time ago I adopted the point of view that URIs are either dereferenceable or crap. URI crisis solved, and I can get on with the job of building software.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Leo, some time ago I adopted the point of view that URIs are either dereferenceable or crap. URI crisis solved, and I can get on with the job of building software.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced)

Served from: richard.cyganiak.de @ 2012-02-09 16:10:34 -->
