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

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

From: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:53:14 +0200
Message-ID: <44C64C7A.1000108@gmuer.ch>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Henry Story wrote:
> Is it really "Semantic" content neg that we want? That is only part of
> the problem.
> Imagine I only understand the atomOwl vocab [1] and I expect this
>
> <> a :CategoryList;
>    :category [ :scheme <http://eg.com/cats/>;
>                :term "dog" ];
>    :category [ :scheme <http://eg.com/cats/>;
>                :term "house" ].
>
> but I receive this
>
>
> <> a :McDonaldCategoryList;
>    :McCategory [ :McScheme <http://eg.com/cats/>;
>                :McTerm "dog" ];
>    :McCategory [ :McScheme <http://eg.com/cats/>;
>                :McTerm "house" ].
>
>
> Where  in fact
>
>      :McDonaldCategoryList owl:sameAs :CategoryList .
>         :McCategory owl:sameAs :category .
>         :McScheme owl:sameAs :scheme .
>         :McTerm owl:sameAs :term .
>
> 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.
That's what I proposed, "semantic content negotiation" may be the wrong
term for this, maybe "vocabulary negotiation".
>  - or way to specify in detail the relations that will appear in a
> document and the vocabulary used to describe those relations, so that
> by stating that a resource is say a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument, one
> not only knows what types of relations one will find in there, but
> also that one will be able to interpret them.
I don't think this is a good approach. <http://gmuer.ch/> is an
rss:channel, a knobot:Topic and a webdav:Collection, to what should I
reduce the RDF representation to? A WebDavRDF-Client will want other
triples than an AtomOWL aggreator.

reto



Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 16:53:48 GMT

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