W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2006

Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:20:27 +0200
Message-Id: <E4F737EE-315A-4660-98BD-C81F6EB39ED0@bblfish.net>
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>


On 24 Jul 2006, at 15:02, Danny Ayers wrote:
> On 7/24/06, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>>   - or way to specify in detail the relations that will appear in a
>> document and the vocabulary used to describe those relations, so that
>> by stating that a resource is say a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument, one
>> not only knows what types of relations one will find in there, but
>> also that one will be able to interpret them.
> [snip]
> [this]  point begs the question of how you specifiy what's in a
> document beyond this - I know you mentioned RelaxNG earlier. The
> nearest approach I know of is using rules (i.e. beyond RDF), as in
> Schemarama2 [3,4, 5].

But I think this would be a lot easier to do, than play with HTTP.

Sean B. Palmer had presented GraphSL a few years ago. But looking at  
it superficially I wonder if it will work, since it uses reification,  
and reification does not help distinguish identically referring  
names. (The Hesperus = Phosphorus problem). And so I am not sure  
GraphSL would be able to distinguish a :category from a :mcCategory .

The Schemarama 2 tool you mention seems like a good idea, because it  
uses SPARQL, and so it can limit its queries to a graph. One way of  
looking at a graph is as a quotation mechanism. If so then this does  
seem like it should be a good way to define graph types.

Once one can define graph types then it should be possible to define  
a Document Type (namely those whose graph is of that type).

If that is possible, then it is ok to say that a resource is a  
producer of such graph types, and then it is ok for me to expect to  
find information of that type at that resource, when following links  
that make such claims.

<http://eg.com/categories> a awol:CategoriesDocument .

That is as much as we can ask for from the web, and so consequently  
the argument that we can't get by with an application/xml+rdf mime  
type [1] to express everything that we need to is dead in the water.

That is all I need to be satisfied.

Everything else is just extra goodness.

Henry

[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg05901.html

> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
>> [1] http://bblfish.net/work/atom-owl/2006-06-06/
> [2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SparqlEndpointDescription
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/validation
> [4] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/schemarama/
> [5] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/schemarama/how.html
>
>
> -- 
>
> http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 14:20:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:11 GMT