- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:46:29 +0200
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Michael, that's great! If [2] were to be updated with that [1] (i.e. officially containing RDFa about these URI:s), and would be 303:d to from [3] (along with anything under that URL), this would be all we need. I know it hasn't happened for years, but sometimes a nudge at just the right time may be all it takes.. If not, would you consider updating your interim solution to describe URI:s under [1]? I mean, since [2] currently uses the real IANA URI:s (i.e. the "unsanctioned" ones) and those, as Danny cautioned, could end up e.g. being resolved to documents, breaking semantics (as well as not being discoverable). I did a manual (well, vim-macro:ed) conversion of [3] into RDF/XML, but had to leave to eat easter eggs at my sister's and entertain her kids. :) It's located at [4] now, and quite similar to the data in [1]. Note that I do consider [1] much more interesting. (That said, if anyone would like me to make e.g. an XSLT for turning [4] into something like [1], just say the word.) Best regards and happy easter! Niklas [1]: <http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel> [2]: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml> [3]: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/> [4]: <http://bitbucket.org/niklasl/tripleheap/src/tip/iana-link-relations.rdf> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: > > Nathan, Phil, All, > >> 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? > > Yes. Use [1] ... > > My motto is: acting rather than talking. So, I took [2] as a starting point > - which is already in nice XHTML format - and manually added some RDFa. > After an hour I ended up with [1] (though, to be fair, two Wii games with > the kids and consuming some Easter eggs also took place in that hour). > > So, [1] is really a sort of an interim solution (though, in the distributed > data world I do expect much more of such fixes) and I encourage Phil, who is > an editor of [2] to use the template from [1] at the 'official' location. > > Happy Easter! (and back to Wii games, for now ;) > > Cheers, > Michael > > [1] http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel > [2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml > > -- > 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 20:47:23 UTC