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

CoIN: Composition of Identifier Names

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:06:01 +0200
Message-ID: <k2rcf8107641004130206r68f68327m201c80c0c3e64647@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi all!

I'd like to point you to a vocabulary I've made for describing how to
mint (or validate) URI:s from RDF properties of a resource: CoIN -
Composition of Identifier Names [1].

It's completely based on needs we have in my current work, and may
still evolve a bit. Therefore this is both an early announcement and
an inquiry to see if this thing is of general interest.

I've found it very valuable to formally declare the pieces from which
an URI is to be composed of. Especially in our environment where we
have a central design of the URI:s, but decentralized publishing of
data (which is of a somewhat rich and varied nature). Currently we use
the CoIN scheme for our domain to:

* Formally express our URI compositions, thereby concretizing our
needs and potential complexities.
* Generate structured documentation about which properties (and lists
of tokens for resources such as publication series) the URI:s are
composed of (using XSLT on a Grit [2] serialization of it plus the
relevant vocabularies).
* Verify the published RDF descriptions by minting URI:s from this
data and comparing these to the supplied subjects (currently with
SPARQL+Groovy; next step is to see if Grit+EXSLT may be a more clean
approach (due to SPARQL 1.0:s inability to do recursion)).

I'd love to hear any thoughts on whether you'd find this approach
useful in general.

Best regards,

[1]: <http://code.google.com/p/court/wiki/COIN>
[2]: <http://code.google.com/p/oort/wiki/Grit>
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 09:06:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:05 UTC