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

Re: [call for comments] voiD 1.0

From: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:25:40 +0000
Message-ID: <49833814.1020206@koeln.de>
To: public-lod@w3.org

Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 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.

Yep, or http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-source says "Recommended best practice is to identify the related resource by means of a string conforming to a formal identification system." vs. "This term is intended to be used with non-literal values [...]".

>> 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.

I suppose you're right, it just didn't work with my interpretation of it. :-)

> 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?

No, I think that's ok.

>> 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.

Well, it wouldn't be a fixed list, just another example. The Turtle language for example has its own identifier defined in its specification: http://www.dajobe.org/2004/01/turtle/#sec-identifiers
I was always wondering about uses of this and maybe this would be the ideal one. :-)

>> - 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.

Ok, replied again, but you're right about the sub-classes.

>> - 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 ahead.

I will try!

Thanks,
  Simon
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 17:26:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:19 UTC