W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: ISSUE-47 Proposal for LDP vocabulary document

From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:11:07 +0100
Message-ID: <511DDF8B.3010206@fi.upm.es>
To: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
El 14/02/13 19:48, Steve Speicher escribió:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2013, at 21:22, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I had my fingers near the original member submission vocabulary and
>>> was easy for me to tweak for what we current have in the spec [2].
>>>
>>> I propose that we close ISSUE-47 with the vocabulary at [2].
>>>
>>> I also propose the editors maintain this, along with the spec, to
>>> ensure consistency between the two.
>>>
>>> [1] - http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbp-20120326/ldbp.rdf
>>> [2] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.ttl
>>
>> +1
>>
>> It may be helpful to have a LDPR class and have LDPC be
>> a subclass of it.  I think we have agreement on this, and it
>> helps understanding. Also a pointer to the spec would probably
>> be very useful for people coming across this document by
>> following links.
>>
>
> Maybe useful but the spec currently doesn't define the class
> ldp:Resource so adding it to the vocab now would be premature.  It
> would be good to understand why we need it before we add it (what
> problem is it solving?).

Hi Steve,

Having ldp:Resource may be useful, for example, to describe the 
relationships between a container and a resource. For example, saying 
that the members of containers must be resources (i.e., that the range 
of a membership property must be a resource) or other things like that.

Or maybe someone wants in the future to extend the model saying 
something else about resources.

We may decide not to impose any restriction on the class ldp:Resource in 
this specification, but I see that it is useful to have that vocabulary 
term to facilitate reuse and avoid people coming up with new URIs for 
the class of resources.

> How would one point to the spec? rdfs:seeAlso ? I would expect that
> eventually http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp would direct to an HTML rep (when
> requested) and the spec doesn't feel like the right thing but a simple
> HTML page perhaps generated from the vocab document.  Is there some
> W3C best practice on this?

I would use rdfs:isDefinedBy to say that the specification document 
defines the ontology:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_isdefinedby

Kind regards,

-- 

Dr. Raúl García Castro
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~rgarcia/

Ontology Engineering Group
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
Phone: +34 91 336 36 70 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19
Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 07:11:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:29 UTC