W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > July 2006

Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:19:34 -0400 (EDT)
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
cc: w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.60.0607240912220.10784@joplin.bio.ri.ccf.org>




On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Henry Story wrote:

> In  that case both documents are in fact semantically identical.
>
> So what one wants is either
>
> - a way to specify the *vocabulary* the client understands, and have the 
> sender  send back content only in that vocabulary, or at least add some 
> mappings from its vocab to the one understood by the client.

This has been discussed in a previous thread [1] that you might be 
interested in which (In my estimation) covers what you are asking for with this 
point:

..instance graph sent to client..

     |
   rdfs:isDefinedBy
     |
     V
McDonaldOntology (with owl:sameAs, etc.. mappings to AtomOWL)

     |
   owl:imports
     |
     V
AtomOWL ontology


That is, the appropriate 'trail' can be left by the sender/server for the 
client to determine (by a form of regulated web closure) the mapping via 
owl:sameAs.  The mechanisms to express this trail are there (graph linking 
vocabulary terms), but what is lacking is a social contract for 
traversing distributed RDF graphs and their defining ontologies.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jul/0082.html
[2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/WebClosureSocialConvention

Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 13:19:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:44 GMT