To solve this issue we proposed using a URI that included scheme,
edition, translation, and notation. It would keep the skos:Concept
elements from being merged by RDF. To track relationships of
We used a similar solution for WordNet . It is the minimal thing
you can do to prevent mistakes, but leaves one with the problem of
working with multiple versions of the vocab.
concepts between editions we thought that we could use OWL or use
the SKOS mapping vocabulary.
Complicating matter is that what constitutes a good mapping might
differ between applications. For one application a small difference
between peaches1 and peaches2 might not matter, for another it might.
It seems an open problem; in general there seem to be no established
practices for versioning in the RDF/OWL community.
is the predominate religion and not Christianity. So the concept
identifier 234.56 in the English edition of Dewey could mean
something totally different in the Arabic edition.
Sounds like a case for SKOS mapping. Different URIs for the editions,
map the Christianity ones on each other.
Another solution might be to distinguish between the (global) URI and
(local) edition identifiers. Christianity would get one global URI and
two properties to define the local ID per edition.