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: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:26:00 +0100
To: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
CC: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, <nathan@webr3.org>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C7E11118.EF96%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>

Thanks a lot Phil (for the clarification and the explanation). You helped
indeed much more than you think you did, IMO ;)

Agree to FUP with mnot on HTTP WG's mailing list, maybe with an XSLT handy,
as you suggest.


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

> From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:22:16 +0100
> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
> Cc: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, <nathan@webr3.org>, Danny Ayers
> <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
> Hi all,
> Thanks for keeping me in this loop and apologies for radio silence thus far.
> On a theoretical level - making the link registry available as data is,
> clearly, a jolly good idea and should happen.
> On a practical level I am sorry to say I don't think I can help. In the
> e-mail that Michael sent to bring me in to this discussion he said that
> I was an editor of the Atom registry. Sorry, no, I'm not.
> The ATOM Link registry is under the control of the IESG [1]. To get
> 'describedby' in there I had to send an e-mail to IANA [2].
> But... it's all meant to be temporary. Version 09 of Mark Nottingham's
> HTTP Link header Internet Draft has just been published and, if, as
> we've been hoping for longer than I can remember, it becomes a full RFC
> then the ATOM Link registry will be replaced by a new registry [3].
> The current XML version of the registry has a bunch of declarations that
> suggest that IANA is open to making different versions available if they
> can be automated. An XSLT that produced triples would be pretty simple I
> guess (linked GRDDL-style?)
> The informal place to raise issues around MNot's draft is the HTTP WG's
> mailing list (see announcement at [4]). Mark may be open to persuasion
> on seeking a data version of the registry. Alternatively one could write
> directly to IANA.
> Sorry I can't be of more direct practical help.
> Phil.
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2009Feb/0007.html
> [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010AprJun/0014.html
> Niklas Lindström wrote:
>> Kingsley,
>> 2010/4/6 Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>:
>>> Niklas Lindström wrote:
>>>>> Niklas,
>>>>> Nice!
>>>>> I would once again suggest adding local "owl:equivalentProperty"
>>>>> assertions
>>>>> which enables a reasoner to treat the IANA URIs as synonyms. This is in
>>>>> line
>>>>> with what I like to call the: owl:shameAs pattern :-)
>>>>> Kingsley
>>>> Hi Kingsley,
>>>> thanks!
>>>> Yes, I think that'd be good. But my sketch already describes the IANA
>>>> URI:s directly (by, unsolicitedly, using
>>>> @xml:base="http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/"), so *if* that
>>>> RDF (or preferably Michael's richer and RDFa-based one) were official,
>>>> we wouldn't need that, right? (As those would be self-referential
>>>> statements..)
>>>> Otherwise, if we were to mint our own ("community official") URI:s for
>>>> each of these properties, I'd agree that owl:equivalentProperty should
>>>> definitely be there..
>>>> .. Well, unless it would be decided in the future that values in
>>>> @rel:s at least in Atom are to be viewed as *indirect* references to
>>>> relations via a document (akin to e.g. foaf:interest). Of course,
>>>> that's not the case in XHTML+RDFa, but for the default names in @rel:s
>>>> there the IANA URI:s aren't used (we have the
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#>-based ones instead).
>>>> So to nail down the definitions of (the nature of) the things the IANA
>>>> relation URI:s identify, we'd either have to make it clear that they
>>>> *are* relations (i.e. properties) in the RDF sense (and
>>>> object-properties in the OWL sense), or that they're not. If it's
>>>> undefined, we still can't really make any statements about what they
>>>> are, even if we make up our own properties based on how we view them.
>>>> (Well maybe, if it was declared that their precise meaning will be
>>>> "perpetually undefined".)
>>>> So if they (the URI:s) are (direct references to relations), it'd be
>>>> wonderful to have IANA publish some kind of RDF discoverable via [1]
>>>> to make that clear.
>>> Thing is that we need RDF data representation now, and if we put the linked
>>> data somewhere (some data space) ASAP we can point to what will someday
>>> exist in an IANA data space -- the "shameAs" pattern is a productive
>>> mechanism for letting folks like IANA understand why this is so important
>>> etc. :-)
>> absolutely. But do you think we should describe and use the IANA URI:s
>> directly as properties, or that we need to mint new URI:s for them?
>> The location of the document(s) containing these descriptions may very
>> well be unreachable from iana.org for now (albeit less than ideal),
>> but if we need to mint new ones, we cannot really say the iana.org
>> ones are properties, right*? Since if they are, we should just use
>> them..
>>> Got to be fast :-)
>> True. And durable. ;)
>> Best regards,
>> Niklas
>> [*] =  Excluding owl:equivalentProperty as well since it's range is
>> rdf:Property (via rdfs:subPropertyOf).
>>>> [1]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Kingsley Idehen       President & CEO OpenLink Software     Web:
>>> http://www.openlinksw.com
>>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
> -- 
> Phil Archer
> http://philarcher.org/
> +44 (0)1473 434770
> i-sieve Technologies                   |      W3C
> Sentiment Analysis Beyond Impressions  |      Open Media Web
> http://i-sieve.com                     |      http://www.w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 15:26:35 UTC

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