W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > March 2008

Re: proposed change to best-practices recipes for publihsing rdf vocabs

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:30:46 -0400
Message-ID: <47EE98E6.1000800@ibiblio.org>
To: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Cc: A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk, "'public-swbp-wg@w3.org'" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>


Leo Sauermann wrote:
> Hi Alistair,
>
> Harry Halpin has reviewed cool-uris-for the semantic web and has
> proposed to merge the BestPractices you edit together with cool-uris.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sweo-ig/2008Mar/0097.html
Well, to be precise it seems that "Cool URIs" as stands currently,
except with the slight divergence is Sec 4.7, is a good explanatory
document, but it's "conceptual" and very high level. It would be great
if it could aligned with Best Practices, because after reading it the
average hacker on the street may get excited and actually want to deploy
303 redirection, which is a bit of a black art to most people. That
black art is *not* explained in "Cool URIs" but explained in Best
Recipes. So clearly, so sort of large pointer to "If you actually want
to implement any of this, please see the Best Practices Document" needs
to be in Cool URIs, and some sort of note saying "If you want to know
why to give real world things separate URIs, please see the Cool URI
document" needs to be done.

       thanks,
             harry

> We will not change cool-uris now, but I inform you about his ideas:
>
> It was Harry Halpin who said at the right time 28.03.2008 18:39 the
> following words:
>> 2) Overall the document is excellent explanation. It would be better
>> also if it served as a bit of a primer, since after I've just been
>> indoctrinated into giving URIs to things by using 303s, an eager
>> developer might actually want to do this. Yet the example of how to
>> modify an .htaccess file so 303 and conneg can be used is  in "Best
>> Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies" [3].
>>
>> Yet the only reference of this *extremely useful* cut and paste sort of
>> examples - precisely the kind needed by developers wanting to deploy
>> 303s and conneg - is here  "The W3C's Semantic Web Best Practices and
>> Deployment Working Group has published a document that describes how to
>> implement the solutions presented here on the Apache Web server. The
>> Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20060314/> [Recipes
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#ref-Recipes>] mostly discuss the
>> publication of /RDF vocabularies/, but the ideas can also be applied to
>> other kinds of small RDF datasets that are published from static files."
>> So, why not just either merge the documents? Or keep the "Cool URI"
>> document as an explanation, and keep technical examples in the Best
>> Practice Recipe Doc?
>>
>> To make this document useful as a primer, you either you need to provide
>> working code (like .htaccess files) for your examples inline in the
>> document or *clearly* tell the readers this sort of thing is in the
>> "Best Practices" document.
>>
>> To make your life easier, I'd just move all the rather technical details
>> in Sec 4.7 to the "Best Practice Recipes" in order to keep readers in
>> line. And say, "If you're going to need help implementing content
>> negotation and 303 redirection, please see the working examples for
>> modifying your server in Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF
>> Vocabularies <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20060314/>."
>
> best
> Leo
>


-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2008 19:31:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 29 March 2008 19:31:21 GMT