W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > June 2014

Re: How do you flag a resource which is not available anymore?

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 10:02:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK4ZFVGEJ9M6z9s4XyNoK3Up7hUvPGkC7bSTFD=5m3GTVP7wNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi Kingsley and Karen

2014-06-02 21:32 GMT+02:00 Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>:

> On 6/2/14 2:47 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>> What is worse in the situation Bernard describes is that the domain name
>> may be resold and re-used, but unrelated to the original vocabulary.
>> Although unlikely, some vocabulary items may resolve in the future, but to
>> something entirely unrelated. In that case, part of the message needs to be
>> something like: this has been determined to be unresolvable; do not attempt
>> resolution.
>>
>
At current placeholder for http://mindswap.org, one of the sponsored "Top
Links" category is "Semantic Dementia". I thought it was some weird
concatenation generated by obscure Google Adsense algorithms, but I
discovered it's indeed a well-known syndrom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dementia
"SD patients often present with the complaint of word-finding difficulties.
Clinical signs include fluent aphasia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_aphasia>, anomia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomia>, impaired comprehension of word
meaning."
Seems an hopeless case
"There is currently no known curative treatment for this condition.
Supportive care is essential in what is a greatly debilitating problem."

More seriously now :)


> <#this> . # Is implicit and as a consequence problematic, as per Bernard's
> situation.
>

Indeed, if not well curated or otherwise mind-swapped


> <#this> wdrs:describedby <SomeDocURL.ttl> .  # is explicit and loosely
> coupled rather than implicit and tightly coupled.
>

This is the best of worlds, but in semantic dementia you will not find that
any more


> <SomeDocURL.ttl> xhv:describes <#this> . # is also explicit and loosely
> coupled rather than implicit and tightly coupled.
>

That's the only way when <#this> has gone astray. But finding <#this> in
the data, how do I GET <SomeDocURL.ttl> ?
Simon pointed the case of lemon, which changed URI, but the change is
documented only at the new URI http://www.lemon-model.net/

An RDF processor [1] can make sense of implicit and explicit denotation and
> connotation.
>

Sure. If I find the triple <SomeDocURL.ttl> xhv:describes <#this> in some
trustable source I can hopefully make sense of it by following my nose into
<SomeDocURL.ttl>, but I have to find this semantic needle first in the data
haystack ...

Best regards


> Links:
>
> [1] http://linkeddata.uriburner.com:8000/vapour -- will make sense of RDF
> document content based on RDF relations i.e., it's coded to handle explicit
> and implicit relations in regards to HTTP URI based denotation and
> connotation.
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>


-- 

*Bernard Vatant*
Vocabularies & Data Engineering
Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
Skype : bernard.vatant
http://google.com/+BernardVatant
--------------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca*
35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris
www.mondeca.com
Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
----------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 08:03:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:42 UTC