W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2002

RE: Guide: draft of Oct 31

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 16:10:55 -0600
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE32214119829E4@USPLM207>
To: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Regarding Mime types and content negotiation.  

I want to present examples that will work without reference to
the particular server/client pairing.  So I am inclined to leave
the suffixes in.  Is there somewhere I could point the reader
so that they can understand the issues/advantages of using
content negotiation?  

- Mike 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Dean [mailto:mdean@bbn.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:24 AM
To: Smith, Michael K
Cc: webont
Subject: Re: Guide: draft of Oct 31 

> My only problem will be explaining content negotiation based on MIME
> types.  Given our recent discussions, I now doubt that I understand
> this as well as I thought.  I pretty much get it for files.

You might not need to say much/anything about content
negotiation, which mostly gets handled by the server.  If a
server supporting content negotiation has only foo.owl, you
can resolve it using either foo or foo.owl.  Try

  http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl.txt (might later change to .owl)

Minor nit:  I've had trouble figuring out how to enable
content negotiation on Microsoft IIS.  I reluctantly include
the .daml or .owl when referencing pages served by IIS.

> But does it work for resources? E.g.
> http://www.example.org/wine#RedWine      vs
> http://www.example.org/wine.owl#RedWine.

These are distinct URIrefs (and opaque), so it's most
important that they be consistent.  Both URIrefs should be
resolvable, as discussed above.

> Does it generalize?
> So that we would delete the .owl suffix from all of the following?
>   <!ENTITY vin "http://www.example.org/wine.owl#" >
>   xmlns:vin ="http://www.example.org/wine.owl#"
>   <owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://www.example.org/wine.owl">


> > 3) Several of us regret not providing examples of instances
> > (content) separate from ontologies in the DAML+OIL examples.
> Sounds like an excellent idea. I would like to postpone it until
> the next version.


> When I
> talk about sameClasssAs, I actually suggest that the example I use is
> bogus and would be better done by using a straight reference.

That's sufficient.  Sorry I overlooked the discussion.

Another minor style point:  in wine.owl and food.owl, you
probably want to use the entities vin and food in their
corresponding namespace declarations, i.e.


This allows any subsequent changes to be made in one place.


Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 17:11:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:48 UTC