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: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:57:23 +0100
To: "'Richard Cyganiak'" <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: "'LOD Mailing List'" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000c01cce7f3$8b3cf980$a1b6ec80$@uniroma2.it>
Dear Richard,

many thanks for the valuable indications (well I didn't know about the
practice of using baseuri as main conceptscheme, so yes, I prefer to use the
baseuri for the concept scheme in that case!).
Best,
Armando

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cyganiak [mailto:richard@cyganiak.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:52 AM
> To: Armando Stellato
> Cc: LOD Mailing List
> Subject: Re: using baseuri of a Dataset as the resource representing
> the Dataset itself
> 
> 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 12:57:18 UTC

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