W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Is it best practices to use a rdfs:seeAlso link to a potentially multimegabyte PDF?, existing predicate for linking to PDF?

From: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:31:32 +0300
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Peter DeVries <pete.devries@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Message-Id: <1294669892.3294.48.camel@midgard>
On Пнд, 2011-01-10 at 13:04 +0000, Toby Inkster wrote:
> Don't we already have enough of those?

Maybe we do, but then it's an issue of "best practice" consensus and
documentation. I think both publishers and consumers could benefit from
a broadly-agreed-upon list of common link types with appropriate

> <s> powder-s:describedby <o> .
> # <o> provides some more information about <o>, often in a
> # machine-readable format.

Or could as well be a 15M PDF. An autonomous LD client cannot tell.

An informal recommendation like "use wdrs:describedby to point to a
terse and authoritative RDF description" and/or "wdrs:describedby is
equivalent to a follow-your-nose description" would help.

Then again, nothing in the POWDER spec says it shouldn't be a 15M PDF.
So we kind of imbue a predicate with semantics it doesn't have according
to the standard. A separate term with a clear specification would avoid
this problem and everyone could rely on it.

> <s> rdfs:seeAlso <o> .
> # Like powder-s:describedby but perhaps more tangential.

As Tim's email suggests, this interpretation is not universal.

> <s> rdfs:isDefinedBy <o> .
> # <o> provides the canonical definition of <s> .

It's clear what a "definition" is for an RDFS vocabulary term, but not
clear if I can apply this to instance data. Is "authoritative
description" synonymous with "definition"? Does anyone use isDefinedBy
for things other than classes and properties?

Vasiliy Faronov
Received on Monday, 10 January 2011 14:32:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:11 UTC