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

Re: CoIN: Composition of Identifier Names

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:53:38 +0100
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <91CD03D0-343E-4051-B7B7-840C042CAF52@cyganiak.de>
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>

On 13 Apr 2010, at 10:06, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> 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].

Nice. Creating URIs from descriptions of resources is a recurrent  
problem, so it's great to see a proposal in this space!

I had a look at the documentation and didn't quite manage to grasp how  
it works in detail. The documentation is mostly just a usage example,  
which is a nice start but doesn't quite do it for me. Looking at the  
N3 for rdfs:comments also didn't help much.

I think that URI Templates [3] might be a handy companion syntax for  
CoIN and I wonder if they could be integrated into CoIN. I'm thinking  
more about the general curly-brace-syntax rather than the fancy  
details. So perhaps you could start with something like


and then attach further information to those {foo} parts, e.g. a  
TokenSet and the represented property.

Anyway, nice work.


[3] http://bitworking.org/projects/URI-Templates/

> 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,
> Niklas
> [1]: <http://code.google.com/p/court/wiki/COIN>
> [2]: <http://code.google.com/p/oort/wiki/Grit>
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 11:54:13 UTC

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