On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
On 26 Nov 2008, at 21:53, John Graybeal wrote:
<snip>
would you agree that duplicating a massive set of URIs for 'local technical
simplification' is a bad practice? (In which case, is the question just a
matter of scale?)
You are asking me if 'local technical simplification' is a good reason or a
bad reason for duplicating URIs? Uh, I guess it depends...
My point was this: The key benefits of URI re-use can also be obtained by
minting your own URIs and linking them to existing URIs via adequate RDF
properties. And that practice can have additional practical/implementation
benefits (and costs). Hence, consider both options; there's no reason to
knee-jerk against creating new identifiers.
I agree in theory with Richard, but in practice with John. The key
benefits of URI re-use can only be gained by using multiple URIs if we
have "adequate URI properties" (i.e. owl:sameAs?) and given an adequate
reasoning system that can identify the same URIs in any data set -
including large ones - where we want to merge data using these "inferred
to be the same" URIs.
To my knowldge, we have neither adequate URI properties or working
reasoning services, at least for the end-user. Now perhaps this will
change, but if not, why not re-use URIs?
If we do have adequate URI properties besides the infamous owl:sameAs,
please point me to them. And while at ISWC there was clearly lots of work
on large-scale identity management trying to discover URI equivalences via
inference, I'm not sure how well that works right now.
Furthermore, there's the question of what URI to use in the output if one
is identifying URI's to be the same and one wants to re-use the merged data.
-harry
> Best,
Richard
John
--------------
John Graybeal <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
--
--harry
Harry Halpin
Informatics, University of Edinburgh
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
