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 19:30:27 +0200
Message-Id: <099265E0-D417-473F-A3D3-39DE75F14CFA@bblfish.net>
Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>


On 25 Jul 2006, at 18:53, Reto Bachmann-Gmür 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.
> I don't think this is a good approach. <http://gmuer.ch/> is an
> rss:channel, a knobot:Topic and a webdav:Collection, to what should I
> reduce the RDF representation to? A WebDavRDF-Client will want other
> triples than an AtomOWL aggreator.

Perhaps you're having trouble because you want to do a little too  
much with content negotiation? ;-)

There certainly are cases where things are a lot simpler, and one  
wants to define certain documents by the relations they contain.

So perhaps one test for an awol:EntryDocument graph would be

PREFIX : <http://bblfish.net/work/atom-owl/2006-06-06/#>
CONSTRUCT {

     [] a :Warning;
          :message 'An entry without an id, a title or an updated '.

} WHERE {
     ?e :id ?id;
        :title ?title;
        :updated ?updated .
     FILTER ( !bound(?id) && !bound(?updated))
}


Schmerama2 does need some more working on. It would be nice if it  
could be written out using N3 rules, or at least not be so tied to  
Jena rules. But if I can trust definitions like this, then I should  
be able to follow documents I understand to other documents I  
understand.

Which as I said, is what is needed to cut short the critique that the  
Semantic Web has just moved the mime type explosion problem to some  
other place [2]. This can be summarised as follows. Every new xml  
language usually needs its own mime type. But RDF only really needs  
one (application/rdf+xml). If on the other hand one has to do  
semantic content negotiation to get the information one needs, then  
it would seem that rdf suffers the same problem as vanilla xml: it  
will require an infinite number of other content negotiation  
mechanisms to get the information one desires. But as shown above one  
can have expectations of the types of documents at certain locations.  
These expectations needs not be very strict. But they can bootstrap  
my discovery process.


Henry Story

[1] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/schemarama/
[2] last paragraphs of :
     http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg05901.html


Home page: http://bblfish.net/
Sun Blog: http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 17:30:39 GMT

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