- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:59:35 +0200
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Michael, 2010/4/6 Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>: > >> If not, would you consider updating your interim solution to describe >> URI:s under [1]? I mean, since [2] currently uses the real IANA URI:s >> (i.e. the "unsanctioned" ones) and those, as Danny cautioned, could >> end up e.g. being resolved to documents, breaking semantics (as well >> as not being discoverable). > > I'm not totally sure if I understand but I guess the answer would be yes ;) Nice. I mean to the effect of minting something like <http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel#self> etc. for each of them. :) > It's interesting that you've modelled the relation-type as RDF properties in > [4] whereas I turned them (in [1]) into instances of the class > 'awol:RelationType' from the AtomOwl vocabulary. > > Any thoughts? Ah, yes. I just made a minimalistic set of statements about them, with only RDF semantics. Via RDFS and OWL your statements entail mine, since awol:RelationType is a rdfs:subClassOf owl:ObjectProperty (and, via that, of rdf:Property). If IANA wants to use RDF to define the link relations (which I assume all of us here think they should), the question remains how rich semantics they're willing to add to the definitions.) Best regards, Niklas > Cheers, > Michael > > -- > 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 22:46:29 +0200 >> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> >> Cc: <nathan@webr3.org>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Phil Archer >> <phil@philarcher.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology? >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> that's great! If [2] were to be updated with that [1] (i.e. officially >> containing RDFa about these URI:s), and would be 303:d to from [3] >> (along with anything under that URL), this would be all we need. I >> know it hasn't happened for years, but sometimes a nudge at just the >> right time may be all it takes.. >> >> If not, would you consider updating your interim solution to describe >> URI:s under [1]? I mean, since [2] currently uses the real IANA URI:s >> (i.e. the "unsanctioned" ones) and those, as Danny cautioned, could >> end up e.g. being resolved to documents, breaking semantics (as well >> as not being discoverable). >> >> I did a manual (well, vim-macro:ed) conversion of [3] into RDF/XML, >> but had to leave to eat easter eggs at my sister's and entertain her >> kids. :) It's located at [4] now, and quite similar to the data in >> [1]. Note that I do consider [1] much more interesting. >> >> (That said, if anyone would like me to make e.g. an XSLT for turning >> [4] into something like [1], just say the word.) >> >> Best regards and happy easter! >> Niklas >> >> [1]: <http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel> >> [2]: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml> >> [3]: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/> >> [4]: <http://bitbucket.org/niklasl/tripleheap/src/tip/iana-link-relations.rdf> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Michael Hausenblas >> <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: >>> >>> Nathan, Phil, All, >>> >>>> and quote: >>>> "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be >>>> considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/" >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt >>>> >>>> obviously all the links defined by: >>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml >>>> (from the atom rfc) >>>> >>>>>> 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? >>> >>> Yes. Use [1] ... >>> >>> My motto is: acting rather than talking. So, I took [2] as a starting point >>> - which is already in nice XHTML format - and manually added some RDFa. >>> After an hour I ended up with [1] (though, to be fair, two Wii games with >>> the kids and consuming some Easter eggs also took place in that hour). >>> >>> So, [1] is really a sort of an interim solution (though, in the distributed >>> data world I do expect much more of such fixes) and I encourage Phil, who is >>> an editor of [2] to use the template from [1] at the 'official' location. >>> >>> Happy Easter! (and back to Wii games, for now ;) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Michael >>> >>> [1] http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel >>> [2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml >>> >>> -- >>> 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: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> >>>> Organization: webr3 >>>> Reply-To: <nathan@webr3.org> >>>> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:14:16 +0100 >>>> To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> >>>> Cc: 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: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:14:54 +0000 >>>> >>>> Danny Ayers wrote: >>>>> On 3 April 2010 00:53, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> 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/* >>>>> >>>>> Can't find a URL that resolves there >>>> >>>> snap; but that's what rel="edit" and so forth resolves to. >>>> >>>> see example: >>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#ATOMSection >>>> >>>> and quote: >>>> "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be >>>> considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/" >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt >>>> >>>> obviously all the links defined by: >>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml >>>> (from the atom rfc) >>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> By using something as a predicate you are making statements about it. >>>>> But... >>>>> >>>>> If you can find IANA terms like this, please use them - though beware >>>>> the page isn't the concept. You might have to map them over to your >>>>> own namespace, PURL URIs preferred. >>>> >>>> Would it make sense to knock up an ontology for all the standard >>>> link-relations and sameAs them through to the iana uri's? >>>> >>>> Best, Nathan >>>> >>> >>> >>> > >
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 15:00:28 UTC