Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

Nathan,

> 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

Just for the record: the current draft of Web Linking is [1] and the
statement above is not present anymore, in there. However, you find
something alike in Appendix C.

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09.txt

-- 
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: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
> Organization: webr3
> Reply-To: <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>
> Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
> Resent-From: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:14:54 +0000
> 
> 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 Saturday, 3 April 2010 16:56:01 UTC