- From: (unknown charset) Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:44:10 +0200
- To: (unknown charset) SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Vocabulary Management Task Force Telecon, 2005-06-21 IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/21-vmtf-irc Attendees Tom Baker Alistair Miles Dan Brickley Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0064.html 1. Report from the last Telecon, Jun 07 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0046.html. 2. "Basic Steps for Managing an RDF Vocabulary" - next steps http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/principles/20050513 3. "Some Things that Hashless URIs can Name" - next steps http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/httpclass/1 Http-range has been resolved; the TAG decision on this issue should be cited in the VM note [1] (see also [2]). Should we we retire the hashless note from our work list? Decide to include in the VM note an explanation of how to implement redirects when using hashless URIs. Note is that this is on the assumption that rdfs/owl properties + classes are not themselves info resources. The hashless note was an attempt to argue that they are; but now not so urgent to explore that option. This issue could confuse people, so perhaps best avoided in the VM note. Dublin Core does redirect. Foaf used to -- and should again. All purl.org namespaces redirect (sometimes to something without a #). Notion of "information resource" is appealed to in TAG finding. Emphasis is on the vocabulary-describing document that you point off to being an info resource. ACTION: Danbri try find out how many of the "slash" namespaces use redirect at moment (and who might change first). Decide to add placeholder into the note: "Best practices for http behavior of classes and properties". ACTION: Tom Namespace documents; at the moment, they say "should make available material for people [3,4], which also defines information resources: By design a URI identifies one resource. We do not limit the scope of what might be a resource. The term "resource" is used in a general sense for whatever might be identified by a URI. It is conventional on the hypertext Web to describe Web pages, images, product catalogs, etc. as "resource". The distinguishing characteristic of these resources is that all of their essential characteristics can be conveyed in a message. We identify this set as "information resource." If we try to gloss for RDF and OWL community, given Roy doc, will need to point to namespace document (webarch). These three cites will give our advice some authority. People know this is a confusing area; given this decision, in the end it is quite simple. It's just defining our terms. Rather than define "info resource" ourself, can use tag architecture link. Maybe VM TF could do outreach to major namespace owners, to get them to use more OWL, etc, and use that to drive OWL adoption, and have others in SWBPD WG adress OWL Full vs OWL Lite. Outreach to vocab communities would be a second step, after this current note is done. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html [2] http://internetalchemy.org/2005/06/victory [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#pr-namespace-documents [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#id-resources ACTION ITEMS ACTION: All - Add examples to note. ACTION: Danbri try find out how many of the "slash" namespaces use redirect at moment (and who might change first). ACTION: Tom to add reference to TAG decision and placeholder into the note: "Best practices for http behavior of classes and properties". NEXT TELECON Tuesday, Jul 05, 1300 UTC (1500 Amsterdam) Zakim: +1.617.761.6200 Conference code 8683# ('VMTF') irc://irc.w3.org:6665/vmtf -- Dr. Thomas Baker baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de SUB - Goettingen State +49-551-39-3883 and University Library +49-30-8109-9027 Papendiek 14, 37073 Göttingen
Received on Monday, 27 June 2005 13:47:26 UTC