- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:14:16 +0100
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Danny Ayers wrote: > On 3 April 2010 00:53, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Any guidance on using predicates in linked data / rdf which do not come >> from rdfs/owl. Specifically I'm considering the range of: >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/* > > Can't find a URL that resolves there snap; but that's what rel="edit" and so forth resolves to. see example: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#ATOMSection and quote: "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/" http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt obviously all the links defined by: http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml (from the atom rfc) >> such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the >> thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not >> already. >> >> Any guidance? > > By using something as a predicate you are making statements about it. But... > > If you can find IANA terms like this, please use them - though beware > the page isn't the concept. You might have to map them over to your > own namespace, PURL URIs preferred. Would it make sense to knock up an ontology for all the standard link-relations and sameAs them through to the iana uri's? Best, Nathan
Received on Friday, 2 April 2010 23:14:53 UTC