My underlying assumption would be that the default thing served up would
be html, but you could reach the other representation consistently
through adding an appropriate ending or whatever would be most
suitable... but that people looking at the html should have a shiny red
button type clue that there is another way to retrieve the info which is
for example as owl.
Yes, I agree.
> I will point out that on the CRM site, there is also an entire
> architecture wherein each version has its own overall presentation:
> e.g.: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Version/version-6.2.1
I think this should be maintained but not used as URIs for classes.
Why would you argue against using it as the resolving point for
individual classes?
Because it includes versions. These are necessary when working across
different versions but I do not think versions are needed for classes.
Currently this is not supported at all, correct? I mean you always point
at a version. So you would suggest that 'current' should be 'versionless'?
I am suggesting that classes do not need versions at all. Doing
reasoning on a per class and per version basis would be bad practice,
no? One would expect that the whole RDF/OWL representation would be used
for reasoning. I think class URIs are only used as identifiers. This
also avoids the problem of ensuring correct older versions for
deprecated classes.
How I understood Erlangen to work is that it just makes the versionless
URI redirect to the current. So I thought the idea would be that
'current' resolves to the present official (whatever the present
official means). If a class has been deprecated then I guess it would
have to revert to the last official in which it had existed?
All the best,
Thanasis
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
