Sounds good to me. But we should keep a simple but usable core to
avoid that all the work based on APML will be done through the
extension. Moreover extensions are subject to be more or less
proprietary (specified, implemented and used by a small group of
applications) and this should be limited.
APML must be usable itself
and extra "whatever" should always still be optional (ie not
indispensable to use the others parts).
If you do want to put some description of a concept into the APML, then
the basic philosophy of RDF would be to reuse some existing vocabulary
where possible. That would be SKOS. But I do agree with your earlier
post that SKOS and zThes and the like are complementary to APML.
Anyway, a question: yes there are few stable ontologies(*) at the moment
to which URIs for concepts can refer. But, what you are suggesting would
only be usable by advanced semantic web type applications. Wouldn't such
applications require those ontologies in order to work?
I imagine that the scenario would be that any application generating
APML with URIs to identify concepts, would only do so if it had access
to an ontology to which it could refer with those URIs, and if it wanted
to refer to concepts not in that ontology would have a mechanism for
creating new entries (or at least identifiers for undefined entries).
Does that make any sense, or am I missing something?
Phil
(* actually there are lots of controlled vocabularies that would do, but
often they have usage restrictions, or are only used in certain
communities; and frequently they don't identify terms with URIs, but if
the maintainers of these vocabularies were a convinced that there was a
case for using URIs they could probably do so quite easily.)
Paul, could you give an example as to what this would look like if
implemented this way? Maybe I'm too stuck on the optional 'uri'
attribute concept......
We just need to be sure to choose either the Extension or the URI
Attribute - otherwise we might confuse the issue.
On Feb 16, 6:56 am, TSchultz55 <TSchult...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A URI should always point to a SPECIFIC identifiable thing or
> concept.