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: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:52:10 +0000
Cc: "LOD Mailing List" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1454B6EA-093E-46AC-84A6-ED484751637B@cyganiak.de>
To: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Armando, in many cases it's not practicable because the base URI usually already denotes something else. For example, for concept schemes it is common to use the base URI as the identifier for the skos:ConceptScheme resource. If that's not so in your case then there's nothing wrong with using it to denote the void:Dataset.

Choice of URIs is 100% up to the data publisher, and there's little point in giving detailed recommendations for how to mint URIs for use with a particular vocabulary. It's not their syntactic structure that matters, but the triples that relate them.

Best,
Richard


On 7 Feb 2012, at 18:50, 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
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 10:52:39 UTC

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