On 7/17/14, 3:43 AM, Thomas Berger wrote:
> Sure. But Rob's (absolutely valid) point are the inconsistencies arising
> from resource URIs we want to distinguish as "identifiers" simultaneously
> used as resource URI for the bf:Identifier as such. Making statements about
> some URIs (as URIs as in contrast to the resources they represent) would
> constitute a more subtle form of the same(?) fallacy and is likewise absolutely
> not admissible.
> My point of view however would be to simply dispense n URIs into m bf:Identifier
> containers and keep them striclty in object position there...

Which *you* can do, but you cannot prevent anyone else from using them 
"in the subject position." Therefore, in the open web, you cannot 
enforce this consistency.

I note that all of your examples use URN forms, not http URIs, which are 
the LOD standard. That could mean that we are not talking about the same 
thing. URNs are by definition URIs, but in the semantic web context only 
http URIs are used for subjects and predicates (although, beyond the 
"use http URIs" statement by TBL, I don't see an absolute restriction in 
the RDF documentation).

What I believe you are proposing is the same that I proposed in the variant [1], which is to have an "identifier" property for 
those identifiers that CANNOT be used as subjects in RDF statements. If 
that is the case, then it is essential that no URIs are used as objects 
of that predicate.


Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet