W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > September 2005

RE: [VM] Telecon on Tuesday, 27 September

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:40:01 +0200
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>, "SW Best Practices" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCGEPGGNAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>


Preliminary questions for the telecon from someone who's been quite off the debate lately.
First I must say I've not yet recovered from the httpRange-14 resolution shock ... the
kind of answer which makes me feel like I do not understand the question any more. But
since everybody seems to have to live with that from now on, is a vocabulary manager
supposed to master all subtleties of http protocol, GET, response code, redirect and the
like necessary to understand this resolution?

>From the viewpoint of one who does not care about process details, does Alistair's
proposal means something different from the following?

When I put in my browser
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept
I will get what I currently get at
http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-spec/#Concept
instead of the current page of RDF code where the ressource is somewhere formally defined
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core

In this case, what is the difference with Published Subjects, e.g.
http://psi.oasis-open.org/iso/639/#fra
which retrieves an human-readable resource, instead of the formal definition contained
somewhere in e.g.
http://psi.oasis-open.org/iso/639/639-core.rdf

Or
http://www.mondeca.com/system/publishing#Document
which is formally defined in
http://www.mondeca.com/system/publishing.rdf

Sorry if this sounds too much naive, or missing the point altogether.

Bernard


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]
> De la part de Dan Brickley
> Envoyé : mardi 27 septembre 2005 13:54
> À : Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc : Thomas Baker; SW Best Practices; public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Objet : Re: [VM] Telecon on Tuesday, 27 September
>
>
>
> Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
>
> >Hi Tom, all,
> >
> >Ahead of telecon today, here's a short note re intentions for SKOS Core URI
> dereferencing.
> >
> >Currently SKOS Core does the following...
> >
> >All property & class URIs follow the pattern:
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#localName
> >
> >A GET against the URI http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core returns a message
> with 'Content-type: application/rdf+xml' (irrespective of what content type(s)
> the client asked for) and response code 200.
> >
> >To bring into line with FOAF & DCMI, I would like to propose a change to this
> dereferencing policy.  I propose the following:
> >
> >1. A GET against http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core with 'Accept:
> application/rdf+xml' redirects (via response code 303) to the latest snapshot
> of the SKOS Core RDF description (currently
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/history/2005-03-31).
> >
> >(This ensures that provenance of RDF statements about SKOS Core classes &
> props is always a historical (date-stamped) snapshot, allowing run-time
> distinction between 'versions'.)
> >
> >2. A GET against http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core with an accept field that
> is not 'application/rdf+xml' redirects (via response code 303) to the latest
> version of the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-spec/)
> >
> >(This ensures that a click on the URI of a SKOS Core prop or class in a
> browser will take you to the right bit of the spec.)
> >
> >How's that look?
> >
> >
> ...and gets against URIs of specific terms?
>
> Dan
>
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 12:40:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:06 UTC