W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Best practice file-extensions for RDF/SKOS resources

From: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:01:12 +0100
Message-ID: <4B715C98.7060604@innoq.com>
To: Simon Cox <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
CC: 'SKOS' <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, "'FUGAZZA Cristiano (JRC-ISPRA)'" <cristiano.fugazza@jrc.ec.europa.eu>, "DUPKE Soren (JRC-ISPRA)" <soeren.dupke@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Hi Simon,

great intention!
I remember discussions into this direction in the sensor web community
even years ago, but OGC keeps on sticking to a URN scheme ;-(

Have you read "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/
and "Cool URIs don't change" (1998 by TBL)
http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI ?

Following these principles, the URI

http://www.opengis.net/def/objectType/ISO-19107/2003/GM_Polygon

looks fine for me. However I think it is not such a good idea to have
hundreds of files called 'gml.xml' and 'rdf.xml' which can only be
destinguished by their position in the directory structure.

If you need such files at all, I would choose GM_Polygon.gml and
GM_Polygon.rdf.

Best regards,

Thomas








Simon Cox schrieb:
> We are setting up a repository of definitions used in Open Geospatial
> Consortium web services, so that xlink references in Geography Markup
> Language documents resolve to something useful. 
>
> In some cases the definitions will be structured using special syntax
> defined within GML (e.g. for coordinate reference systems). But in most
> cases the definitions are structured generically, so we propose to provide
> alternative representations in GML (which has a <Definition> element for
> this purpose) and in RDF/SKOS using the RDF/XML syntax. The intention is to
> support content negotiation using the http Accept: header. The mime-types
> are application/gml+xml and application/rdf+xml, respectively.
>
> In the short term these representations will be persisted as little XML
> documents in a file-system. But since all are still XML, I am wondering what
> is the recommended practice for the file suffix. I had proposed to structure
> the tree with a terminal directory corresponding to the terminal field in
> the URI, containing files called 'gml.xml' and 'rdf.xml'. For example, the
> URI 
>
> http://www.opengis.net/def/objectType/ISO-19107/2003/GM_Polygon 
>
> would be supported by these paths on the server
>
> def/objectType/ISO-1907/2003/GM_Polygon/gml.xml
> def/objectType/ISO-1907/2003/GM_Polygon/rdf.xml
>
> However, a colleague has questioned whether the naming convention is
> optimal. I'm interested to know of other opinions and experiences relating
> to this. 
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Simon Cox
>
> European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 
> Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 
> Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 
> Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 
> Tel: +39 0332 78 3652
> Fax: +39 0332 78 6325
> mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu 
> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 
>
> SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
> IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   


-- 
Thomas Bandholtz, thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com, http://www.innoq.com 
innoQ Deutschland GmbH, Halskestr. 17, D-40880 Ratingen, Germany
Phone: +49 228 9288490 Mobile: +49 178 4049387 Fax: +49 228 9288491
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 13:01:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:46:00 UTC