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
  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">

Yes.

> > 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.

Great!

> 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.

  <rdf:RDF
    xmlns:food="&food;"
    xmlns:vin="&vin;"
    ...

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

Thanks!

	Mike
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 17:11:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT