Comments on: WordNet links http://openguid.net/2008/10/wordnet-links/ Web Identity Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:58:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Jason http://openguid.net/2008/10/wordnet-links/#comment-7 Jason Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:13:00 +0000 http://openguid.net/?p=57#comment-7 I agree that is bad practice. As such, the wn3.0 URL is not published in any RDF documents or hyperlinked from the GUID summary screen. It merely exists as an informational reference to help people understand it's nature. Another benefit of maintaining the reference: it can easily become an "active" link if new versions of WordNet RDF/OWL are ever published by the W3C. I agree that is bad practice. As such, the wn3.0 URL is not published in any RDF documents or hyperlinked from the GUID summary screen. It merely exists as an informational reference to help people understand it’s nature.

Another benefit of maintaining the reference: it can easily become an “active” link if new versions of WordNet RDF/OWL are ever published by the W3C.

]]> By: Matthias Samwald http://openguid.net/2008/10/wordnet-links/#comment-6 Matthias Samwald Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:15:01 +0000 http://openguid.net/?p=57#comment-6 "2896 concepts were brand new. Since there is not an RDF representation of 3.0, these are maintained with a fictional URL to the W3C, approximately what it would be if they were to publish a new version." Uhm, if I understood you right that sounds like a bad idea. Declaring entities in foreign namespaces is really bad practice. Matthias Samwald DERI Galway, Ireland // Semantic Web Company, Austria “2896 concepts were brand new. Since there is not an RDF representation of 3.0, these are maintained with a fictional URL to the W3C, approximately what it would be if they were to publish a new version.”

Uhm, if I understood you right that sounds like a bad idea. Declaring entities in foreign namespaces is really bad practice.

Matthias Samwald
DERI Galway, Ireland // Semantic Web Company, Austria

]]>