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

Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:46:07 +0100
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
CC: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>, <nathan@webr3.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C7DD2F5F.EE84%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Niklas,

> 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),

You're not peradventure talking about [1], no?

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://mediatypes.appspot.com/

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 14:28:43 +0200
> To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
> Cc: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>, <nathan@webr3.org>, Linked Data
> community <public-lod@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
> Resent-From: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:29:37 +0000
> 
> 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#>
> 
> 
> 
> 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 16:46:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:26 UTC