W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [call for comments] voiD 1.0

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:51:31 +0000
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Message-Id: <AEBA932D-E808-464D-8A21-E2029FED48EC@cyganiak.de>
To: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>


On 29 Jan 2009, at 21:52, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
> Congratulations!


> - <http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/source/browse/trunk/liftSSM/SSM2void.xslt 
> > uses void:uriPattern instead of void:uriRegexPattern and so does  
> the example output under <http://rdfs.org/ns/void-guide#sec_4_3_Publishing_tools 
> >.
> I really like the addition of void:uriRegexPattern!

We'll batch some minor fixes to the Guide, it'll be corrected in a few  

> - I'm not so sure about the correctness of the usage of  
> dcterms:format under <http://rdfs.org/ns/void-guide#sec_1_5_Technical_description_features 
> >. First, dcterms:format requires a resources rather than a literal.

DC is wildly inconsistent and self-contradictory in this regard. For  
example, for dc:creator it says "the name of the creator should be  
used" as the object, and then declares a range of dc:Agent, which  
obviously is nonsense. Well, but that's not really an excuse for us,  
so you are probably right that this is poor usage.

> Then, this would mean that the void:TechnicalFeature *has* this  
> format, so it would be a document, not that it *is* that format.

You read too much into this. dc:format has no domain defined, and the  
prose description just says "the format of the resource", which I  
don't see as conflicting with our use. You cannot conclude that X is a  
document just because it has a dc:format.

In summary, I agree that our examples in 1.5 are poorly chosen, and we  
should use better ones. I think this is not very urgent, since the  
section basically says: "Come up with your own way of identifying and  
describing features. Here's an example how it could look like."  
Consider it as encouragement to do better than we did ;-)

Do you think it's harmful to leave the example as is in the Guide,  
until we do a future voiD 2.0?

> How about:
> :DBpedia void:feature <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF/XML> .

That's probably a good idea, but we don't want to specify a fixed list  
of technical feature URIs for this version of voiD. Rather we want to  
see what people actually use, and then decide how to move ahead. But  
FWIW I personally fully support this use of DBpedia URIs.

> - My questions on <http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/issues/detail?id=19&can=1 
> > still stand. ;-)

I answered in the issue tracker. Summary: Distinction between  
wrappers, caching and non-caching datasets and so on are concerned  
with technical implementation details, and they should be described  
via void:feature (if at all) rather than via subclassing void:Dataset.  
As you know, we do not provide instances to be used with void:feature  
at the moment, but will consider proposals.

> - I hope there will be some alignment with SIOC in the future (see  
> also <http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev/browse_thread/thread/da8a2d4c1f4adf38/07370433943f906d?show_docid=07370433943f906d 
> >).

We are in principle open towards further alignment with SIOC, but this  
requires clarifications from the SIOC ontology authors first, as  
indicated in my mail that you linked to above. I didn't get any  
answers to it, so the issue is stalled. You should lobby the SIOC  
folks to help me clarify these issues, if you want to help moving this  


> What I'm especially after is using sioc:has_container instead of  
> dcterms:isPartOf to go from the page of an item in the dataset to  
> the description of the dataset (which would be a sioc:Container as  
> well).
> I think I will just do this for now (for the project I'm working on)  
> since I'm providing discovery via sitemap.xml anyway.
> Cheers,
> Simon
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 16:52:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:54 UTC