On Nov 19, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Robert Forkel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> while I also think this is not rocket surgery, I'd like to point out that
> trial (and potentially error) as suggested by your "go back to step #1"
> instructions is not a good solution to coming up with URIs. I think once
> published - i.e. put on a webserver - you should be able to keep the URIs
> in your RDF persistent. Otherwise you are polluting the Semantic Web with
> dead links and make it hard for aggregators to find out whether the data
> they harvested is still valid.
> So while iterative approaches are pragmatic and often work out well, for
> the particular issue of coming up with URIs I'd recommend spending as much
> thought before publishing as you can spend.
Intellectually, I completely understand.
Practically, I still advocate putting publishing the linked data as soon as possible. Knowledge is refined over time. The data being published is not incorrect nor invalid, just not as good as it could be. Data aggregators will refresh their stores and old information will go to "Big Byte Heaven”. It is just like a library collection. The “best” books are collected. The good ones get used. The old ones get weeded or relegated to off-site storage. What remains is a current perception of truth. Building library collections is a process that is never done nor never perfect. Linked data is a literal reflection of library collections, therefore linked data is never done nor never perfect either. URIs will break. Books will be removed from the collection. URIs will go stale.
The process of providing linked data is a lot like painting a painting. The painting is painted as a whole, from start to finish. One does not get one corner of the canvass perfect and move on from there. An idea is articulated. An outlined is drawn. The outline is refined, and the painting gradually comes to life. Many times paintings are never finished but worked, reworked, and worked some more.
If the profession looks to make perfect its list of URIs, then it will never leave the starting gate. I know that is not being advocated, but since one can not measure the timeless validity of a URI, I advocate that the current URIs are good enough. There is an understanding of a commitment to updating them and refining them in the future.