- 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