W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: Abstract protocol URIs

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:02:41 -0600
Message-ID: <20041221090241.C1452@monkeyfist.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 09:41:15PM -0600, Dan Connolly muttered something about:
> When you moved the protocol WD from monkeyfist.com to w3.org
> I expected these URIs to change as well:
> 
>  tag:monkeyfist.com,2004-10-13:/sparql-p/abstract/operation/query
> 
> The vocabulary of operations is pretty clearly a namespace,
> and W3C has a policy for namespace URIs
>   http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri
> 
> EricP, I'm pretty sure you won't be able to publish without
> fixing this.
> 
> Then, since it's good practice* to make available a representation
> of this namespace, and RDF is handy for describing resources,
> we might as well use it to describe the abstract protocol, ala:
> 
> @prefix p: <http://www.w3.org/2004/sparql/prot#>.
> @prefix dt: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
> @prefix rdfs: ...
> @prefix owl: ...
> 
> p:getGraph
>  util:inputTypes (
>    OperationPoint
>    [ owl:unionOf (
>       owl:Nothing # optional
>       p:OperationTarget
>       p:OperationTargetSet
>     ) ]
>  ).
> 
> 
> and so on.

If this has to be done before pub'ing, it will have to wait till I done with
holiday and back in DC. I will change the protocol URIs for sure. Not yet
sure about using RDF in that way to describe. I still have to think a bit
more about using the WSDL2 RDF mapping. But I agree in principle, FWIW.

Kendall
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 15:02:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:21 GMT