W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Technical issues impacting government use of linked data

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:50:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <317634.48507.qm@web112620.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: public-egov-ig@w3.org
Cc: Josh Tauberer <tauberer@govtrack.us>, Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com>
> 1) That given a data URI, there is no standard way to programmatically
> access the metadata about the resource.

The Linked Data 'movement' started, as I recall, in the use of http: 
URIs as the convention for all RDF resources....

FWIW:  
IMHO, the biggest impediment to linked data standardization is not the link, or the data, it's the perception of redundancy for authors in one Document Object Model or another. 

The owl:sameAs is not the same logical assertion as owl:equivalentClass.  Take for example a data base and a HTML page.  Both presumably have some sort of URI, which points to the root of the DOM at a fixed point (not the "title").  You can give a database a "title", so that's ok.  But you have to understand that the data base is all /html/body or to put it another way, that /html/head/@profile defaults to <ANY>|(null).  What you really want the profile to default to is <RDF:rdf> or some rdfs:subClassOf (Dublin Code, SKOS, OWL, FOAF etc.).  Only then will the meta data be "exposed" (as opposed to "printed") properly.  In the same way as you added a "title" to a data base you could add a fixed "profile" + rows of elements (Collection).  For linked data to "work", either a retrofit of data bases (with title and profile) or a retrofit of HTML (either profile or /html/head/meta/@xlink:type="locatorLink") is necessary. 


      
Received on Saturday, 13 March 2010 22:51:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 13 March 2010 22:51:14 GMT