tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5309813565185918044.post9097291210064548809..comments2021-09-16T07:52:51.049+02:00Comments on Dust Feed: A Great Day for SpecificityNiklas Lindströmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08426611594566532481noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5309813565185918044.post-85579904469309950542007-03-27T01:11:00.000+02:002007-03-27T01:11:00.000+02:00Ah yes, in general most URI:s do point to regular ...Ah yes, in general most URI:s do point to regular pages and thus identify those in themselves. For all of that I definitely see a good use of TDB. But dbpedia themselves delcare (the bulk of) their URI:s as concept identifiers (those under <http://dbpedia.org/resource/>):<BR/><BR/>"[...] dbpedia can also be seen as a huge ontology that assigns URIs to plenty of concepts and backs these URIs with with dereferencable RDF descriptions."<BR/><BR/>That's "good enough" by my standards. It may still be an open (albeit mainly philosophical) question about the "correctness" of that though. And I definitely see it as relevant to point out the misnomer in using URI:s to represent "real things" carelessly ("I am not my email").<BR/><BR/>Do you consider the dbpedia approach (also taken by e.g. Semantic MediaWiki, see e.g. <A HREF="http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~sauermann/2006/11/cooluris/" REL="nofollow">Cool URIs for the Semantic Web</A>) to be conceptually flawed? If so, could it be corrected if there was an owl:sameAs statement for each relevant URI:s pointing to an "urn:tdb"-based one, or do you find the scheme of a URI significant for the nature of the thing it identifies?Niklas Lindströmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08426611594566532481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5309813565185918044.post-5329029114441393932007-03-27T00:19:00.000+02:002007-03-27T00:19:00.000+02:00You might have missed the point of 'tdb':http://dp...You might have missed the point of 'tdb':<BR/><BR/>http://dpedia.com/anything<BR/><BR/>is still the URI of the web page at dpedia. If you want a URI that identifies the thing described by that web page and not the web page itself, you need some other way of 'grounding' the abstraction in the real world.<BR/><BR/>Some people want to usurp the fragment identifier '#' to do that grounding, but '#' already has a meaning for subpart referencing.<BR/><BR/>So, to distinguish between me and my web page, you either need some other external mechanism ('the thing described by my web page') or you need a new URI scheme (urn:tdb or tdb).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com