W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2012

RE: using baseuri of a Dataset as the resource representing the Dataset itself

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:44:09 +0100
To: "'Sarven Capadisli'" <info@csarven.ca>
Cc: "'LOD Mailing List'" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007601cce689$4452b200$ccf81600$@uniroma2.it>
Dear Sarven,

thanks a lot for your reply.

However, I'm not sure if I got what you meant from your message. I did not
want to put the VoiD data elsewhere, but the contrary. I was thinking if
there is any reason for not having a triple like this:

<http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc> a void:DataSet

In the same triplestore/sparqlendpoint of the data so that, say, an http
access to:

http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_1222 returns the description of concept
c_1222

while an access to the baseuri:

http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc

returns the description of the dataset. 

In all examples I read the dataset is a specific resource "under the
baseuri" so, for instance, in this case:

http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/localnameofthedataset

while I would like to use just the baseuri as the resource for the dataset.

So, any specific reason for not doing that?,

Armando


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarven Capadisli [mailto:info@csarven.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:19 PM
> To: Armando Stellato
> Cc: LOD Mailing List
> Subject: Re: using baseuri of a Dataset as the resource representing
> the Dataset itself
> 
> On 12-02-07 06:50 PM, Armando Stellato wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > a simple question about publishing datasets according to the VOID
> > specification:
> >
> > I've a SKOS concept scheme (in the specific: AGROVOC:
> > http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/) to publish according to the VOID
> > specification. One very simple thing which came to my mind was: why
> > not using the baseURI (again: http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/) of
> the
> > scheme as a resource and publish it as a DataSet?, much like the
> > common practice in ontologies is to use the baseuri as the resource
> > identifying the ontology itself. This way, I would not use any file,
> > and I would just make the data accessible through the SPARQL
> endpoint.
> > The baseuri would also return - through HTTP access, in case of a
> > request for any of the RDF mime-types - exactly the description of
> the Dataset.
> >
> > This is compliant with many access modalities suggested in the void
> > guide (e.g. discovery of dataset through SPARQL queries would still
> > find the dataset declaration).
> >
> > However, I did not find any example like this in the DERI guide nor
> in
> > the W3C draft, so was wondering if there is any reason for rejecting
> > this possibility.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Armando Stellato
> >
> 
> 
> Hi Armando,
> 
> The DataGovIE's VoID [1] describes the graph names for the vocabularies
> that are used in the datasets with the SPARQL Service Description.
> 
> If your SPARQL service is able to dereference remote graph IRIs (using
> FROM/FROM NAMED), you could get them on the fly. However, that's not an
> ideal solution. A local copy of the vocabulary is more preferable in my
> opinion.
> 
> [1] http://data-gov.ie/void.ttl
> 
> -Sarven
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 17:47:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:37 UTC