2011/8/24 Alvaro Graves <[email protected]> > Not sure what you mean. The problem is that the URIs in the > ontology/vocabulary are not dereferenceable?
No. I'm talking about availability of RDF models in the practice, more than a conceptual or theoretical aspect. > In general, I would say the idea of replicating a vocabulary is a bad > practice: Even is you use owl:sameAs, owl:equivalentProperty and > owl:equivalentClass to map your new version to the old version, it will be > confusing for a lot of people who wants to use your data. > I know, this is the reason of this open question. Bests, > ---- > Alvaro Graves > > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Francisco Cifuentes < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> I'm currently working in projects related with LOD in the legislative >> scope for the Chilean government, and i think i've detected a problem that >> probably more than someone has had. >> >> What happens when an ontology is not available in the URI of their >> namespace? >> I say this because ideally, we need our "distributed the domain model" for >> validate our data in diferent contexts, for instance using a tool like >> Tabulator. >> >> For these cases i'm thinking in some solutions such as replicate the >> ontology in a own URI (if the ontology licence it allows) or define in some >> way alternative prefixes (an idea?), ensuring (in a greater degree) the >> availability of the models. >> >> I will be grateful of receiving suggestions about this problem. >> Bests, >> >> -- >> Francisco Cifuentes-Silva >> ------------------------------------ >> WESO Research Group >> Facultad de Ciencias >> Universidad de Oviedo >> http://www.bcn.cl >> http://www.weso.es >> http://twitter.com/fcifuentes >> > > -- Francisco Cifuentes-Silva ------------------------------------ WESO Research Group Facultad de Ciencias Universidad de Oviedo Tel: +34 985103397 http://www.weso.es http://twitter.com/fcifuentes
