Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

Niklas Lindström wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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
> stability.
>
> Best regards,
> Niklas
>
> [1]: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09#section-6.2.2>
> [2]: <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#>
>   
Yes, but in the meantime the fastest approach would be to put something 
the purl namespace with respective "owl:equivalentClass" and 
"owl:equivalentProperty" .  Sadly, the other approaches just won't 
happen quickly, as already demonstrated en route to Nathan hitting this 
bump.

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


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Received on Saturday, 3 April 2010 15:37:44 UTC