You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
IRIs must be allocated for almost everything
in RDF: things, concepts, properties, etc. -- both TBox
(ontology/schema) and ABox (instance data). IRI allocation
is easy in theory but hard in practice! "Cool IRIs" are
dereferenceable http(s) IRIs, but domain registration costs
money and is not permanent. Dereferenceable IRIs require a
commitment that many RDF producers are not ready/able/willing
to make. And even when the RDF producer is willing to use
dereferenceable http(s) IRIs, how exactly should those IRIs
be formed? There are many possible solutions, but no standard
best practice. Again every team has to figure out its own path.
IDEA: provide clear standard guidance for URI allocation
IRIs must be allocated for almost everything
in RDF: things, concepts, properties, etc. -- both TBox
(ontology/schema) and ABox (instance data). IRI allocation
is easy in theory but hard in practice! "Cool IRIs" are
dereferenceable http(s) IRIs, but domain registration costs
money and is not permanent. Dereferenceable IRIs require a
commitment that many RDF producers are not ready/able/willing
to make. And even when the RDF producer is willing to use
dereferenceable http(s) IRIs, how exactly should those IRIs
be formed? There are many possible solutions, but no standard
best practice. Again every team has to figure out its own path.
IDEA: provide clear standard guidance for URI allocation
URI allocation process from Hugh Glaser:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2018Nov/0200.html
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: