W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > September 2007

Review requested for "Cool URIs"

From: Ed Summers <edsu@loc.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:18:57 -0400
Message-Id: <46F79D2102000015003B6A7C@ntgwgate.loc.gov>
To: <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Sorry for the delay folks. I did read both Vit and Michael's reviews, but didn't address any of their specific concerns in my review. I would be interested to hear more about Vit's concerns about managing resource identifiers for the Gene Ontology with respect to the Cool URIs document. Like Michael I found myself wondering what the implications were of 'web documents' containing RDFa. Nothing an example couldn't fix though I imagine.



Review of Cool URIs for the Semantic Web [1]

General Remarks:

As a software developer who has only recently become involved in the 
application of semantic web technologies I found the Cool URIs for the 
Semantic Web document to be an excellent, pragmatic discussion of what it 
means to create URIs in the context of the semantic web. For a relative 
newcomer it seems that the semweb community has spent quite a bit of energy 
on the httpRange-14 issue [2]. This document represents the logical 
application of that work in providing some simple guidelines for both
those who seek to publish RDF graphs on the web, and for application 
developers who are building agents to process those data sets.

I think that this document will be useful to cite in documents like the SWD's
Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies [3] and the SKOS Core
Guide [4] because it will provide sufficient background information on what the 
recipes are trying to accomplish. In some ways I think the document highlights 
the limited focus the Recipes on RDFS and OWL vocabularies instead of RDF 
graphs in general.

Specific Remarks:

- p. 4, paragraph 5: Since the AWWW [5] is being cited did the authors 
  consider using 'information resource' and 'non-information resource' instead 
  of 'web document' and 'non-document resource'? The AWWW seems to prefer 
  'information resource' and I couldn't find any mention of 'web document' 
  in it. A change like this would ripple out across the document. Also
  did the authors consider a few examples of an 'information-resource sniff
  test'? I think a few examples of how to determine if a resource is an 
  information resource or a non-information resource would be useful.

- p.5, paragraph 3: 'Requests for HTML would be redirected to the web page 
  URLs we gave in section 2' might be clearer as 'HTTP requests for HTML 
  content would be redirected to the HTML URLs we gave in section 2'. 

- p.9, paragraph 3: In addition to seeing the use of <link> to to allow
  agents to discover RDF associated with an HTML document, it would be useful 
  to see a similar example using RDFa and GRDDL. Does the fact that RDFa 
  isn't a recomendation yet preclude it from being used in this document?

- p. 10, section 5: I would like to see dbpedia [6] included since it uses the
  303 redirect technique to link directly to a SPARQL query, and it is such
  a rich and evolving dataset. It would also be useful to be referred to a 
  good hash URI real world example.

- p. 14, section 9: Would the restriction against derivative works prevent 
  this document from being used as a W3C reference document? For example the 
  SWD had talked about possibly including portions of the document in the 
  Recipes document or elsewhere and this license was perceived to restrict 
  that usage.

[1] http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/dfkidok/publications/TM/07/01/tm-07-01.pdf
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/#securis
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#id-resources
[6] http://dbpedia.org/
Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 15:19:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:45 UTC