- From: Stuart Yeates <stuart.yeates@vuw.ac.nz>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:06:08 +1200
- To: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
The initial aim of this was to counter an apparently arbitrary repository ranking algorithm (which I won't deign link to) with a set of web standards that we (repository developers and maintainers) can collectively work towards, with an emphasis on breadth of different standards that could be applied. -- I've greyed out the 'everything' requirement, since I'm not sure that 'everything' is script-testable. I've grey'ed out the content negotiation requirements since I'm not aware that any repositories or prototypes that try and do this (I'm happy to be corrected). I've found a better URL for the RDFa requirement. cheers stuart On 13/09/14 22:58, Hugh Glaser wrote: > The messages below should make sense. > Stuart is trying to make a doc for rating repositories. > > I’ve added some stuff about Linked Data: > From http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html (Linked Data Principles) > Everything has a URI - publications, documents, people, organisations, categories, ... > These URIs are HTTP or HTTPS > When RDF is requested, the URIs return RDF metadata > RDF/XML supported > N3 supported > Turtle supported > JSON-LD supported > There are URIs that are not from this repository > There are URIs from other repositories > There is a SPARQL endpoint > RDFa is embedded in the HTML > > Is there somewhere I could have taken this from that would be suitable? > Anyone care to contribute? > It seems like it is a really useful thing to have (modulo a bit of specialisation for any particular domain). > (I didn’t want to go over the top on formats, by the way.) > Cheers > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Stuart Yeates <stuart.yeates@vuw.ac.nz> >> Subject: RE: testable properties of repositories that could be used to rate them >> Date: 13 September 2014 10:31:36 BST >> To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >> Cc: "JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK" <JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> >> >>> I notice there is nothing about Linked Data and Semantic Web - would it be sensible to have something on this? >> >> If there's something that's recommended by some standard / recommendation and is script-testable, you're welcome to add it. >> >>> So for example does it provide RDF at all? >> >> It has a question based on http://validator.w3.org/feed/ which validates RSS, which in turn is either RDF (v1.0) or can trivially be converted to it (v2.0/atom). I've added a note that this is RSS. >> >> cheers >> stuart > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> >> Subject: Re: testable properties of repositories that could be used to rate them >> Date: 12 September 2014 14:05:34 BST >> To: <JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> >> Reply-To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> >> >> Very interesting (and impressive!) >> >> I notice there is nothing about Linked Data and Semantic Web - would it be sensible to have something on this? >> Well, actually there is Semantic Web:- right up at the start there is a Cool URI reference, which is the the W3C "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web” note! >> >> Perhaps there should be a section on this - maybe starting with with whether it is 5* Linked Data. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data >> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html >> >> But it probably useful to unpick some of this in a less structured way. >> So for example does it provide RDF at all? >> Formats? RDF, N3, JSON-LD… >> >> Best >> Hugh >>> On 12 Sep 2014, at 03:29, Stuart Yeates <stuart.yeates@VUW.AC.NZ> wrote: >>> >>> A couple of us have drawn up a bit of a list of script-testable properties of repositories that could be used to rate them. We’re tried to both avoid arbitrary judgements and the implication that every repository should meet every item: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sEDqPS2bfAcbunpjNzHwB56f5CY1SxJunSBLFtom3IM/edit >>> >>> cheers >>> stuart >>
Received on Monday, 15 September 2014 10:35:08 UTC