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

Re: [foaf-protocols] ACL

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:10:33 +0100
Message-ID: <4BCDB5D9.8050507@webr3.org>
To: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, foaf-protocols <foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org>
Story Henry wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2010, at 08:47, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>> Nathan,
>> That sort of reminds me of something [1] ;)
>> So, I asked a round a bit [2] and the answer essentially was: go register
>> one ... fancy doing it together?
> The latest document draft-nottingham is here btw
>   http://cidr-report.org/ietf/idref/draft-nottingham-http-link-header/
> One could just register it by adding the relation in the acl ontology such as
> acl:rules a rdf:Property;
>    rdf:domain foaf:Document;
>    rdf:range foaf:Document;
>    ...
> As you can see in the 5.5 examples, you can have a rel value as a URL. ( So in this it is similar to
> atom). The only disadvantage then is that you don't get the nice shorthand, for inclusion in Atom XML, 
> and other documents.

Yup that's what I went for too :)

Link: </.wac/everyone.n3>; rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl#";
title="Access Control File"

> So I suppose the best would be to add the relation first to the ontology, work out a good wording
> for it, test it out, then ask for the IETF shorthand, the put an owl:sameAs link to the ietf one, which
> hopefully we can then convince them to serve up as linked data.

related discussion for those hunting the archives:

> I'd be happy to support a document for the link. It seems to me the Atom folks could find that very
> useful. Not sure yet how cold they are towards rdf still.

Likewise (if the input is needed)


Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 14:11:16 UTC

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