Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

Hi all!

Has anyone gone further in making this happen? Should we form some
sort of workforce to approach and work with IANA to get URI:s and RDF
for their registries (at least link relations and mime types come to
mind)?

(It is certainly asked for, as this recent question at
SemanticOverflow indicates:
<http://www.semanticoverflow.com/questions/639/is-there-a-namespace-to-describe-mimetypes-and-encodings>.)

Best regards,
Niklas


On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Michael Hausenblas
<michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot Phil (for the clarification and the explanation). You helped
> indeed much more than you think you did, IMO ;)
>
> Agree to FUP with mnot on HTTP WG's mailing list, maybe with an XSLT handy,
> as you suggest.
>
> 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: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
>> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:22:16 +0100
>> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
>> Cc: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen
>> <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, <nathan@webr3.org>, Danny Ayers
>> <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Thanks for keeping me in this loop and apologies for radio silence thus far.
>>
>> On a theoretical level - making the link registry available as data is,
>> clearly, a jolly good idea and should happen.
>>
>> On a practical level I am sorry to say I don't think I can help. In the
>> e-mail that Michael sent to bring me in to this discussion he said that
>> I was an editor of the Atom registry. Sorry, no, I'm not.
>>
>> The ATOM Link registry is under the control of the IESG [1]. To get
>> 'describedby' in there I had to send an e-mail to IANA [2].
>>
>> But... it's all meant to be temporary. Version 09 of Mark Nottingham's
>> HTTP Link header Internet Draft has just been published and, if, as
>> we've been hoping for longer than I can remember, it becomes a full RFC
>> then the ATOM Link registry will be replaced by a new registry [3].
>>
>> The current XML version of the registry has a bunch of declarations that
>> suggest that IANA is open to making different versions available if they
>> can be automated. An XSLT that produced triples would be pretty simple I
>> guess (linked GRDDL-style?)
>>
>> The informal place to raise issues around MNot's draft is the HTTP WG's
>> mailing list (see announcement at [4]). Mark may be open to persuasion
>> on seeking a data version of the registry. Alternatively one could write
>> directly to IANA.
>>
>> Sorry I can't be of more direct practical help.
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2009Feb/0007.html
>> [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09
>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010AprJun/0014.html
>>
>>
>> Niklas Lindström wrote:
>>> Kingsley,
>>>
>>> 2010/4/6 Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>:
>>>> Niklas Lindström wrote:
>>>>>> Niklas,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would once again suggest adding local "owl:equivalentProperty"
>>>>>> assertions
>>>>>> which enables a reasoner to treat the IANA URIs as synonyms. This is in
>>>>>> line
>>>>>> with what I like to call the: owl:shameAs pattern :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kingsley
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Kingsley,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I think that'd be good. But my sketch already describes the IANA
>>>>> URI:s directly (by, unsolicitedly, using
>>>>> @xml:base="http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/"), so *if* that
>>>>> RDF (or preferably Michael's richer and RDFa-based one) were official,
>>>>> we wouldn't need that, right? (As those would be self-referential
>>>>> statements..)
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, if we were to mint our own ("community official") URI:s for
>>>>> each of these properties, I'd agree that owl:equivalentProperty should
>>>>> definitely be there..
>>>>>
>>>>> .. Well, unless it would be decided in the future that values in
>>>>> @rel:s at least in Atom are to be viewed as *indirect* references to
>>>>> relations via a document (akin to e.g. foaf:interest). Of course,
>>>>> that's not the case in XHTML+RDFa, but for the default names in @rel:s
>>>>> there the IANA URI:s aren't used (we have the
>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#>-based ones instead).
>>>>>
>>>>> So to nail down the definitions of (the nature of) the things the IANA
>>>>> relation URI:s identify, we'd either have to make it clear that they
>>>>> *are* relations (i.e. properties) in the RDF sense (and
>>>>> object-properties in the OWL sense), or that they're not. If it's
>>>>> undefined, we still can't really make any statements about what they
>>>>> are, even if we make up our own properties based on how we view them.
>>>>> (Well maybe, if it was declared that their precise meaning will be
>>>>> "perpetually undefined".)
>>>>>
>>>>> So if they (the URI:s) are (direct references to relations), it'd be
>>>>> wonderful to have IANA publish some kind of RDF discoverable via [1]
>>>>> to make that clear.
>>>>>
>>>> Thing is that we need RDF data representation now, and if we put the linked
>>>> data somewhere (some data space) ASAP we can point to what will someday
>>>> exist in an IANA data space -- the "shameAs" pattern is a productive
>>>> mechanism for letting folks like IANA understand why this is so important
>>>> etc. :-)
>>>
>>> absolutely. But do you think we should describe and use the IANA URI:s
>>> directly as properties, or that we need to mint new URI:s for them?
>>> The location of the document(s) containing these descriptions may very
>>> well be unreachable from iana.org for now (albeit less than ideal),
>>> but if we need to mint new ones, we cannot really say the iana.org
>>> ones are properties, right*? Since if they are, we should just use
>>> them..
>>>
>>>> Got to be fast :-)
>>>
>>> True. And durable. ;)
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Niklas
>>>
>>> [*] =  Excluding owl:equivalentProperty as well since it's range is
>>> rdf:Property (via rdfs:subPropertyOf).
>>>
>>>
>>>>> [1]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley Idehen       President & CEO OpenLink Software     Web:
>>>> http://www.openlinksw.com
>>>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Phil Archer
>> http://philarcher.org/
>> +44 (0)1473 434770
>>
>> i-sieve Technologies                   |      W3C
>> Sentiment Analysis Beyond Impressions  |      Open Media Web
>> http://i-sieve.com                     |      http://www.w3.org
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2010 09:16:20 UTC