On Wednesday 26 November 2008, John Graybeal wrote:
> Do you think the argument is mostly settled, or 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?)
I'm a bit late to t
On 27/11/2008 13:43, "Georgi Kobilarov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
>> Do you think the argument is mostly settled, or 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
rg; Semantic Web
> Subject: Re: Dataset vocabularies vs. interchange vocabularies (was:
> Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to
> Freebase)
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, this somewhat echo
On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Interestingly, this somewhat echoes an old argument often heard in
the days of the URI crisis a few years ago: “We must avoid a
proliferation of URIs. We must avoid having lots of URIs for the
same thing. Re-use other people's identif
On 17 Nov 2008, at 22:33, Hugh Glaser wrote:
I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea of "you should use a:b from c
and d:e from f and g:h from i..."
It makes for a fragmented view of my data, and might encourage me to
use things that do not capture exactly what I mean, as well as
introducing
