Re: isDefinedBy and isDescribedBy, Tale of two missing predicates

On 11/5/10 4:51 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 20:58 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> When you create hypermedia based structured data for deployment on an
>> HTTP network (intranet, extranet, World Wide Web) do include a
>> relation that associates each Subject/Entity (or Data Item) with its
>> container/host document. A suitable predicate for this is:
>> wdrs:describedBy [2] .
> Ian mentioned this predicate in his post.
>
> Looking at [1] the range of wdrs:describeBy is given as "class of POWDER
> documents and is a sub class of owl:Ontology" which seems to make it
> unsuitable as a general predicate for the purpose being discussed here.
>
> Dave
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#semlink
>
>
>
>
Dave,

I am not saying or implying that Ian didn't say this in his post. These 
issues have been raised many times in the past by others (including 
myself), repeatedly. Here's the key difference though, yesterday was the 
first time that these suggestions were presented as somehow being 
mutually exclusive relative to use of 303 redirection.

I don't want to start another session with Ian, but here is my 
fundamental issue:
Fixing RDF resources doesn't have to be at the expense of 303 
redirection (mechanism for resolve. At the end of the day there are 
going to be resolvable object/entity identifiers either side of these 
predicates, if we are seeking to keep the resulting Linked Data mesh 
intact etc..

"dropping 303" simply didn't need to be the focal point of the 
conversation. It has nothing to do with why people have been publishing 
"old school" RDF resources that fail to link the container (rdf doc) 
with its structured content (triples).

I hope I've made my point clear :-)

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen