- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:29:25 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I think the "follow your nose" topic feels indeed outside of the WG. Not because it is not relevant, but because it should be solved on a lower, more general level. For example there could be a SPARQL function to get information about a remote resource, and such a function could become a separate extension of SPARQL or part of a SPARQL 1.2. In fact SPARQL already has this partially solved, via the SERVICE keyword which makes inline requests against a (remote) SPARQL end point. Holger On 12/12/14, 2:21 AM, Steve Speicher wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/11/2014 07:24 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: >>> Checking the IRIs >>> by Karen Coyle >>> Europeana aggregates metadata about cultural heritage objects from >>> hundreds of >>> libraries, archives and museums. The incoming data needs to be thoroughly >>> checked for accuracy. Among these checks are those on IRIs as values, >>> which >>> can vary depending on the property. Briefly, the checks are >>> 1) the IRI must resolve, i.e. http status code = 2XX >>> 2) the IRI value must return a media object of a given type (e.g. based on >>> list of MIME types) >>> 3) the IRI value must return an object which is of the rdf:type >>> SKOS:Concept >> >> I am uncomfortable including this kind of checking, although I do see that >> it has uses. One issue here is that the results of the checks are all >> ephemeral. >> > I see the uses of this too, though sees like it is outside the scope > of this WG's current scope but leads itself more towards a "linked > data" validation/quality checker. Has there been any requirements > identified that we don't want to follow links found in any of the > data? Perhaps it drives this sort of requirement. > > - Steve > > ..snip.. >
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 20:29:58 UTC