W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2008

Re: What are proper URIs for RDF representations of real existing content

From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:51:05 +0100
Message-ID: <82593ac00804040051g5bd28850j4d9b24fc8640f668@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mark Diggory" <mdiggory@mit.edu>
Cc: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-lod@w3.org

Hello!



>  But to take this to the point of describing an actual "file", if I have a
> file (lets say a pdf) at /path/too/my.pdf and I'm using content
> negotiation... I suppose I could have a unique rdf representation for that
> pdf that describes it, then /path/to/my.pdf would return that rdf to rdf
> browsers.  But what if I'm asking the browser to also render the pdf? then
> the Accept header needs to adjust to negotiate only the pdf.
>

I guess that, in this sort of case you need an extra abstraction layer
to deal with all copies of that pdf to which you attach information
about the format etc. A bit like in FRBR (Manifestation and Item),
although it should be possible, as you say, to content-negotiate the
pdf object itself (but in this case, make sure the rdf representation
also links to the actual pdf).

In the music ontology, we deal with that the FRBR way. For example,
you may have:
:a a mo:Track; dc:title "track example"; mo:available_as <file1.mp3>,
<file2.mp3>.

Cheers!
y
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 07:51:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:16 UTC