Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

> 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'm not totally sure if I understand but I guess the answer would be yes ;)

It's interesting that you've modelled the relation-type as RDF properties in
[4] whereas I turned them (in [1]) into instances of the class
'awol:RelationType' from the AtomOwl vocabulary.

Any thoughts?

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: 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>
> Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 6 April 2010 13:27:18 UTC