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

Re: Abstract protocol URIs

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:51:03 -0600
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1103644263.3082.554.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 09:02 -0600, Kendall Clark wrote:
> 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.

OK. I think what _has_ to change, per W3C publication rules[1] is
 - using uris of the form http://www.w3.org/YYYY/...
	(note to EricP: we can mint http://www.w3.org/YYYY/MM/foo names
	just by doing CVS add/commit. It's not until we want a shorter
	name with no /MM/ that we need permission
	from Director/Webmaster[2])

 - making sure they're 200, not 404

as to what content you get... for 1st WD, it can just say "the DAWG
has reserved this namespace for its protocol work; we're noodling
on what else to say here. Stay tuned."

Using RDF that way is my personal preference, as a WG member.

I think I'm not being as clear as I should about when I'm giving input
as from any WG member, when I'm relaying W3C policies as a W3C staff
person, and when I'm acting as WG chair. I'll try to keep those
sorts of things in separate messages from now on.

> Kendall

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/02-pubrules.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri

 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 15:50:33 GMT

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