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

Re: Segment RDF on BBC Programmes

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 07:35:58 -0400
Message-ID: <49FED31E.3000709@openlinksw.com>
To: giovanni.tummarello@deri.org
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
> 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.
>   
Giovanni,

RDFa will not generally negate the essential separation of Name (via 
URI.URN-URL) and Address (via URI.URL) since Linked Data oriented 
triples will still contain de-referencable URIs :-)
> * 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 ;-)
>   
Sitemap as part of the autodiscovery best practice collection is 
certainly fine.

Note: URI.URN-URL  means URN that looks like a URL, which is basically 
how the Linked Data meme unobtrusively splits resource "Name" and 
"Address of Description of Resource" via hash and slash based URI 
schemes.  I will publish a blog post about this latter -- part of a 
series of posts aimed at demistifying  "Linked Data" :-)


Kingsley
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   


-- 


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 11:36:38 UTC

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