> Hi all
>
> Some thoughts below on various points (URI, versions, SKOS, RDF/ 
> XML ...)
>
> Norman Gray a écrit :
>>> - suggest keeping version info in the name of the vocabulary  
>>> (rather than in the pathname, which might change without the  
>>> vocabulary actually changing) - eg. "http://myvocab.org/myvocab- 
>>> v1.1#mytoken" rather than "http://myvocab.org/v1.1/myvocab/ 
>>> #mytoken".
>>
> I wonder if it's a good idea to have version number at all in the  
> token URI (identifying a concept, right?). Generally, the  
> vocabulary itself has a version numner, but the concepts are better  
> off defined by a stable URI, e.g., http://myvocab.org/ 
> myvocab#mytoken. Since the definition can change and the  
> authoritative one is in the current version, you can use something  
> like :
>
> http://myvocab.org/myvocab#mytoken    rdfs:isDefinedBy   http:// 
> myvocab.org/myvocab/
> where the later URI serves the most recent version of the vocabulary.
>
> See a good exemple of this good practice in the publication of  
> Dublin Core elements in RDF. The vocabulary is permanently at  
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/
> which currently serves the latest version of the vocabulary http:// 
> dublincore.org/2008/01/14/dcterms.rdf
> in which elements have version-independent URIs, such as http:// 
> purl.org/dc/terms/creator
>
> The stability of vocabulary URIs is important for stability of  
> applications.

True, but the stability of a vocabulary is harder to test externally  
than the stability of an URI.  If your app downloads a vocabulary one  
day and finds that it's useless the next, what do you or the app do?   
Simply give up and try again?  Many of our vocabularies are liable to  
be fairly volatile.

Rick