Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

IRI allocation #12

Open
dbooth-boston opened this issue Dec 7, 2018 · 0 comments
Open

IRI allocation #12

dbooth-boston opened this issue Dec 7, 2018 · 0 comments
Labels
Category: usage For issues around RDF usage in practice standards Standardization should address this

Comments

@dbooth-boston
Copy link
Collaborator

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Category: usage For issues around RDF usage in practice standards Standardization should address this
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant