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

Re: Decommissioning a linked data site

From: Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:30:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKpM4Lm663BVrscfm2FnODukG2fpjJ0-kRV7MYMX6NoW1NCjyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org community" <public-lod@w3.org>
Leigh- This is great. The question that comes up for me out of what you've
written for unpublishing brings me back to Antoine's question: is it
appropriate to use a relation other than owl:sameAs that more specific to
the domain of the affected datasets being mapped, or is the nature of
unpublishing such that one would, as opposed to my reasoning earlier, be as
broad as possible in asserting equivalence, and use owlsameAs in every such
case?

Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org


On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> > @Tim:
> >
> >> For total extra kudos, provide query rewriting rules
> >> from yours site to LoC data, linked so that you can write a program
> >> to start with a sparql query which fails
> >> and figures out from metadata how to turn it into one which works!
> >
> >
> > Is the combination of 301 + owl:sameAs that we have used for RAMEAU, e.g,
> > http://stitch.cs.vu.nl/vocabularies/rameau/ark:/12148/cb11932889r
> > good enough?
> > Or would you recommend more/different?
>
> I've started to capture some advice here:
>
> http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/unpublish.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> L
>
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 14:31:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:40 UTC