On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:08:43 -0700, Andrea Splendiani
<andrea.splendi...@bbsrc.ac.uk> wrote:
- in a continuum between web and semantic web, perhaps IDs are not only
intended to be 'understood' by machines.
Again, I understand the reason for them. But is it worth the reduced
intuitiveness ? Or the added complexity to retain a bit of it ?
I couldn't disagree more :-)
I tend to err on the side of doing "the right thing", and ensuring that
the tooling is there to support "the right thing"... By "right thing" I
mean that I'm sure Hungarian semantic-webbers would have quite something
to say about a decision to make the URI "partOf" rather than "A_0001" +
multi-lingual labels. It's a bit selfish of us English-speakers to create
global infrastructures just for ourselves... na?
(though I guess, for them, "partOf" *is* opaque... so...?? Perhaps that
argument is somewhat spurious??)
Regardless, just as browser bookmarks were created so that we humans
wouldn't have to remember/type/read URIs, there is no good reason that we
humans should ever have to read RDF-XML... and if you are expert enough to
*have* to read it, then you should probably be sophisticated enough to
deal with opaque identifiers (preferably using appropriate tools ;-) ).
If we're having trouble constructing SPARQL queries using opaque
identifiers, lets not solve the problem by building a
"philosophically/technically-incorrect" global architecture just for the
sake of convenience, lets fix it at the level of the SPARQL query writer.
$0.02 <-- mark:partOfMine
Mark
