[topicmapmail] PSIs?

[Martin Bryan]

Murray/Lars Marius

> | I agree it is bad for you to create URIs in their domain, but you
> | wouldn't be doing that in this case. OWL already uses the same URIs,
> | so you would just be following OWLs lead. I think it's much better for
> | us to use the same URIs as the W3C for what is certainly the same
> | subjects.   <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#rdf-datatype >
>
> * Murray Altheim
> |
> | OWL was published by the W3C. I don't see how this is relevant.
>
> That means that the W3C has already defined these URIs as identifying
> what you are describing them as identifying in your PSI set. That
> means that you don't have to do anything except tell your users which
> PSIs to use and how to use them with topic maps.
>
> In other words: you don't have to define any new URIs. RDF is already
> using the XSD ones. All you really need to do is annotate them with
> information about how to use them in topic maps.

I must support the above view. Please remember that topic maps are not the
only SC34 standard that needs to reference the W3C datatypes. We need a
single mechanism that all SC34 standards can use consistently. While the
PURL approach might be a viable and acceptable alternative, SC34 has formal
liaison routes to W3C which we can use to formally request permission to
adopt OWL's URLs as a standardized mechanism for referencing the datatypes.
As we can easily arrange for such a request to be sent to W3C at the London
meeting in a couple of weeks time, and as I can get the UK office of W3C to
chase up a response on this issue for us from MIT, I don't see why we should
have any real delay if we adopt such a strategy.

Martin Bryan