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

Re: Segment RDF on BBC Programmes

From: Giovanni Tummarello <g.tummarello@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 10:53:59 +0100
Message-ID: <210271540905040253m30cdac1rddb57cfd5e7c9ee@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Bravo Kingsley.

Here are my 2 lines of encouragement :-)

* publish in RDFa and live happy with no content negotiation, redirect
303 to end up with 3 different URIs (/resource /data /page)  for what
regular folks stubbornly keep believing being the same thing.

* make sure you put a semantic sitemap (takes 2 seconds) so that
people can find a sparql endpoint and a dump if they want to do more
with your data than just tabulator and or not be forced to recursively
fetch a lot of stuff thus taking 10 seconds and 80 http requests to
show e.g. the labels of what you've published on dblp ;-)

Giovanni



On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Apr 2009, at 10:17, Yves Raimond wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We're aware of the limitations of mod_rewrite to effectively and
>>>> correctly
>>>> implement content-negotiation, please see note at [1] and issue at [2].
>>>> Any
>>>> suggestion on this would be greatly appreciated!
>>>
>>> I've played a bit with several ways of doing it. mod_negotiation seems
>>> to be the most sensible solution. However, I did not find a way to
>>> make it run with non-static files (e.g. DESCRIBE on a SPARQL
>>> end-point). If not using that, then I think the only proper solution
>>> left is to code the content negotiation in the actual web application
>>> (that's what URISpace does, and I think that's what Pubby does).
>>
>> I reached exactly the same conclusion. I would recommend against the
>> mod_rewrite hack because it is not a full implementation of content
>> negotiation. mod_negotiation works great for static files, for everything
>> else you should probably code your own solution. (And everyone who codes
>> their own solution gets it wrong the first time ;-)
>>
>> In practice, content negotiation is quite an interoperability nightmare.
>> One more point pro RDFa, I suppose.
>
> Richard,
>
> Should we not simply start an updataed version of LOD deployment best
> practices in a designated Wiki Space? We certainly need to add the RDFa
> perspective which isn't reflected in a lot of current material.
>
> Others: Apace is not a natural Linked Data Web Server. It is a Document Web
> Server.
>
> Kingsley
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> y
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen       Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> President & CEO OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 09:54:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:20 UTC