W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Document fragment vocabulary

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:58:52 +0100
Cc: URI list <uri@w3.org>
Message-Id: <935E5932-32F0-4489-816B-2536DA780682@deri.org>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>

Disclaimer: both Sebastian and I are working in a large-scale EU  
research project called LOD2 [1] and IIRC this is part of it, right,  
Sebastian?

> i think i don't fully understand what you're trying to do and what  
> you're proposing to solve your problem, but like i said above, the  
> special handling rules look a little suspicious. maybe michael has a  
> better idea of your scenario and can help.

I must honestly admit that I'm not sure what exactly you're after,  
Sebastian. Can you please provide us with some concrete markup along  
with a simple use case? Something along the line: "Emil User has a XXX  
document and wants to do YYY with it, etc."?

Cheers,
	Michael

[1] http://lod2.eu/
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html

On 23 Aug 2011, at 22:59, Erik Wilde wrote:

> hello sebastian.
>
> On 2011-08-16 09:36 , Sebastian Hellmann wrote:
>> The problem is not with our modelling. We are working on a format for
>> NLP tools, that everyone can then implement. So the modelling  
>> should be
>> up to the developer.>
>
> i don't understand that. if you're working on the format, doesn't  
> that imply you're defining the model? developers then simply  
> implement the model that is defined by your format, right?
>
>> I think the core of the problem is, that the uris
>> should serve two use cases: 1. serve as RDF subjects and allow for
>> LinkedData without too much overhead 2. highlight it in a browser/ 
>> client
>> We might assume equality of both and just allow in the NIF format[1],
>> that developers can use both as they like, but then when querying
>> LinkedData they should replace all # with ? and vice versa for
>> browser/highlighting clients.
>
> i don't think i can follow you here, but the substitution rules you  
> are mentioning don't look very nice. URI-wise, # and ? serve  
> different purposes, and creating such a substitution rule to me  
> looks as if you're pretty much guaranteeing that things will break  
> for anybody not aware of your special rules. if for passing around  
> URIs you also have to pass around special rules how to handle them,  
> that's not a good sign.
>
>> Would you think this is too hacky? It might also be that the whole
>> problem is rather hypothetical at the moment, so # might be the  
>> choice
>> now and then we will just wait until the problems arise...
>
> i think i don't fully understand what you're trying to do and what  
> you're proposing to solve your problem, but like i said above, the  
> special handling rules look a little suspicious. maybe michael has a  
> better idea of your scenario and can help.
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
> -- 
> erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-6432253 |
>           | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
>           | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 06:59:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 August 2011 06:59:41 GMT