W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2007

RE: Cool URIs, the Semantic Web and Everything

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:07:03 +0100
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D2985201449E3E@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: "Leo Sauermann" <sauermann@dfki.uni-kl.de>, <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Leo Sauermann" <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>


Richard,

Ok. Sorry my fault. I should have been more explicit :)

I learned from [1] that the TAG does not proceed with this
draft any more and refers to the Cool URI document.

As I've already stated in my first mail, I think you did
a great job and that is basically the same I said in my bit
of the review [2].

The only thing which was unclear for me is if all what has 
been written in the Cool URI doc is valid in the case of XHTML+RDFa.
I did not ask the question to offend anyone nor did I intend to question
your contribution. But there will be questions people will ask when
implementing
RDFa-based stuff (and I like to be prepared :). 

So, I was after a crystal-clear, approved answer ;)
That's were we are. I think I'm happy and see no reasons for 'fighting'.

Cheers,
	Michael

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-10-04/HttpRange-14.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/ReviewCoolURIs

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Cyganiak [mailto:richard@cyganiak.de] 
>Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:02 PM
>To: Hausenblas, Michael
>Cc: Leo Sauermann; semantic-web@w3.org; Leo Sauermann
>Subject: Re: Cool URIs, the Semantic Web and Everything
>
>Michael,
>
>On 20 Dec 2007, at 07:45, Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
>> Thanks for your explanation. I remain not totally convinced :)
>>
>> So, *if* we agree on what you said, IMHO we should
>> reconsider the following paragraph in 'Cool URIs' [1]:
>
>Okay, so you object to the paragraph quoted below. Perhaps I'm 
>failing  to read between the lines, but I don't know *what* your
objection is.  
>An explanation that refers to the text of the paragraph would be much  
>appreciated.
>
>Cheers,
>Richard
>
>
>> 'The solutions described in the following apply to deployment  
>> scenarios
>> in which the RDF data and the HTML data is served separately, such  
>> as a
>> standalone RDF/XML document
>> along with an HTML document. The metadata can also be embedded in  
>> HTML,
>> using technologies such as
>> RDFa [RDFa Primer], microformats and other documents to which the  
>> GRDDL
>> [GRDDL] mechanisms can be applied.
>> In those cases the RDF data is extracted from the returned HTML
>> document.'
>>
>> Still unsure if this is just the tip of the iceberg ...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> 	Michael
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-cooluris-20071217/#solutions
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>> Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>> JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>>
>> http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Leo Sauermann [mailto:sauermann@dfki.uni-kl.de]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:43 AM
>>> To: Hausenblas, Michael
>>> Cc: semantic-web@w3.org; Leo Sauermann
>>> Subject: Re: Cool URIs, the Semantic Web and Everything
>>>
>>> Hi Michael, RDFa people,
>>>
>>> The question is if httpRange-14 [2] is valid in the case of XHTML 
>>> +RDFa.
>>>
>>> The answer is that httpRange-14 is to distinguish URIs for  
>>> information
>>> resources ("web documents") from real-world objects (the person
>>> "Alice"). As such, it is a recommendation on URIs.
>>>
>>> RDFa is an encoding of RDF, and typically an RDFa document has two
>>> relations to URIs:
>>> a) the URI of the RDFa document (=the information resource where I  
>>> can
>>> download the RDFa document)
>>> b) the URIs used as subjects, predicates, objects inside RDF
>>> statements
>>> written inside RDFa documents
>>>
>>> a) is usually a http-200 uri, and a) is an information resource (= a
>>> document).
>>> In the rdf statemetns written inside  A, you would use both URIs for
>>> real-world objects and information resources.
>>> example (I don't know  rdfa syntax by heart now, assume this is  
>>> rdfa):
>>>
>>> document at www.example.com/homepage/aboutAlice
>>> <html>
>>> <p rdf:about="http://www.example.com/identifiers/alice#this">
>>> rdf:type foaf:Person.
>>> </p>
>>> <p rdf:about="http://www.example.com/moreidentifiersusing303/bob">
>>> rdf:type foaf:Person
>>> </p>
>>> </html>
>>>
>>> assuming this would be valid RDFa, the URI .../aboutAlice is a
>>> http-return-200 informaiton resource
>>> .../alice#this is a real-world object as it is not a document (as I
>>> understand timbl on that)
>>> ...303/bob is not intuitively distinguishable - if you ignore the
>>> rdf:type relation you don't know what it is. So for this 
>uri you do a
>>> HTTP get and the server would return a 303 redirect as described in
>>> "cool uris".
>>> once oyu did the 303, you knowthat ....303/bob is a real world  
>>> object.
>>>
>>> so RDFa and 303'/httprange14 are recommendations caring about
>>> different
>>> angles, 303 is only concerned about URIs, RDFa about an RDF
>>> serialization. Technically they don't interfere.
>>>
>>> If I would use RDFa much and would like cool uris, I would go for
>>> #-uris, they are simple to use and easy to embed in RDFa.
>>> but as shown above, you can use any URI you want inside rdfa.
>>>
>>> best
>>> Leo
>>>
>>>
>>> Hausenblas, Michael schrieb:
>>>> ===
>>>> Disclaimer: Michael, with his RDFa-Task-Force-member hat off ;)
>>>> ===
>>>>
>>>> As I gathered "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" is a Working
>>> Draft, now.
>>>> Congrats to Leo and his team, great job!
>>>>
>>>> The following might sound like a naive question - and I might
>>>> have missed something :) - but: Is TAG finding httpRange-14 [2]
>>>> equally valid in the case of XHTML+RDFa?
>>>>
>>>> I've put together some initial thoughts at the ESWiki [3]
>>>> - any comments welcome!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 	Michael
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0103.html
>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14
>>>> [3] http://esw.w3.org/topic/RDFa_vs_RDFXML
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>>>> Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>>>> JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>>>> Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
>>>>
>>>> <office>
>>>>    phone: +43-316-876-1193 (fax:-1191)
>>>>   e-mail: michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at
>>>>      web: http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
>>>>
>>>> <private>
>>>>   mobile: +43-660-7621761
>>>>      web: http://www.sw-app.org/
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 21 December 2007 08:09:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:19 GMT