W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2009

Re: looking for an event ontology/vocabulary

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:23:53 +0100
To: Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@ischool.berkeley.edu>
CC: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Lynda Hardman <Lynda.Hardman@cwi.nl>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C696FB09.6FAF%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Ryan,

>> http://linkedevents.org/ontology/Event
>> 
>> and it 404s ...
>>
> Apologies, that should be fixed now.

Thanks. Sorted ;)

Since this works now, I've got a question: what is the versioning policy
you're using? You obviously have a time-labelled namespace
(http://linkedevents.org/ontology/2009-07-28/) and indeed this resolves to
this one:

curl -H "Accept: application/rdf+xml" http://linkedevents.org/ontology/Event

has a 

xml:base="http://linkedevents.org/ontology/2009-07-28/"

in the returned RDF/XML, which yields

http://linkedevents.org/ontology/2009-07-28/Event

but in your ontology documentation you say it is

http://linkedevents.org/ontology/Event


Hm. I'm confused. Do I get different terms and semantics depending on the
date I dereference it?

Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
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



> From: Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@ischool.berkeley.edu>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:14:19 -0700
> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
> Cc: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Lynda Hardman
> <Lynda.Hardman@cwi.nl>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: looking for an event ontology/vocabulary
> 
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Michael
> Hausenblas<michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
> 
>> So, I'm trying to check how linked dataish it is. First class I pick:
>> 
>> http://linkedevents.org/ontology/Event
>> 
>> and it 404s ...
>> 
>> Maybe fix that and then we continue?
> 
> Apologies, that should be fixed now.
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 06:24:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:44 UTC