W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 14:28:43 +0200
Message-ID: <z2rcf8107641004030528h47490fa8x1fa71a598a73a595@mail.gmail.com>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Cc: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>, nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>

I definitely think IETF should place RDF representations at those
locations, as Henry suggests (e.g. 303 to say
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation.rdf>). Is there really no
way we could make this happen? Since the
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*> URI:s are used directly
in many places it would be very beneficial to have those be the direct
property identifiers. (And since there is really no technology other
than RDF to precisely document their meaning as relations, not going
that direct route would necessitate cumbersome indirection.)

If not, a W3C-sanctioned vocabulary mapping each relation defined at
[1] would really be the second best. We already have [2] defining a
subset of these.

A coordinated community effort could also do of course, as long as it
was stable, durable and gained consensual support.

While I have seen definitions of these relations made by the community
before (e.g. used directly in AtomOwl, and a complete listing made by
Ed Summers, which I unfortunately cannot find now), I think we may
need something more centrally defined for these relations, as close to
official IANA status as possible. Something from the W3C could be
close enough. Boiling down to discoverability, consensus and

Best regards,

[1]: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09#section-6.2.2>
[2]: <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#>

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote:
> Henry, I'm pretty sure you'll have all workings on this - all that's
> needed is a flattened model. I bet it would only take a couple of
> weeks (months) to prepare that in a form that the W3C would accept as
> a Note or something. If you can pull together some of your old stuff,
> I'm happy to draft some text.
> It needs doing soon because of the initiatives that hang off Atom are
> getting interesting. Need to be in there from the get-go.
> On 3 April 2010 03:56, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote:
>> About time to do another rev of that thing? The social xg is having
>> another spin, might be a good time to throw it there.
>> I suspect most folks (yourself there mostly Henry) think this time
>> around it should be done minimally..?
>> On 3 April 2010 01:29, Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>>> On 2 Apr 2010, at 23:53, Nathan wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> Any guidance on using predicates in linked data / rdf which do not come
>>>> from rdfs/owl. Specifically I'm considering the range of:
>>>>  http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
>>> Ah is that something you found in the AtomOWL spec?
>>> Perhaps we should just give them other names, until the IETF places RDF representations
>>> at those locations, which I imagine could take forever.
>>> Henry
>>>> such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the
>>>> thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not
>>>> already.
>>>> Any guidance?
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Nathan
>> --
>> http://danny.ayers.name
> --
> http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:29:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:04 UTC