W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Namespace for prov specs

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:39:36 +0100
Message-ID: <987ECEA8-7136-476C-88F3-4A878BEFD5DF@vu.nl>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
I would suggest the default be html. In general, when people dereference the namespace then a we page seems most appropriate. 

Paul

On Mar 21, 2012, at 23:12, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> Sounds good to me. Not all tools are good enough to send the
> appropriate Accept header, so would the default (when no HTML is
> requested) be to go to the RDF/XML OWL file?
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 08:09, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Can we resolve the namespaces to be used for prov?
>> 
>> This is ISSUE-256 ,  ISSUE-84 , ISSUE-224, ISSUE-281
>> 
>> Here's the suggestion that seems to stem from the discussion
>> 
>> Namespace is:
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
>> 
>> This dereferences to a landing page that points to prov-dm and prov-o if
>> requesting html
>> 
>> The landing page would like:
>> - http://www.w3.org/ns/sparql-service-description#
>> - or optionally be like the glossary given in
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/fd022426796d/model/prov-glossary.html
>> 
>> Otherwise, conneg would be set to return the appropriate data file depending
>> on the request.
>> 
>> I.e .rdt / .ttl depending on the request
>> 
>> See suggestion in ISSUE-281
>> 
>> Is there any disagreement with this approach?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 07:40:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:59 GMT