Re: Dataset URIs and metadata.

> It was the the claim that /.well-known/void is "a standard" that I was
> surprised by. It's the sort of thing that could easily be on a Rec  
> track
> somewhere, I just wasn't aware of it.


Sorry if I somehow gave the impression that VoID is a W3C  
Recommendation. I would consider it as a de-facto standard in the  
Linked Data community. Formally, though it is a W3C Note, yes.

Cheers,
	Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
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

On 22 Jul 2011, at 16:12, Dave Reynolds wrote:

> On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 15:42 +0100, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably VoID metadata/dataset URIs will be easier to discover  
>>>>> once
>>>>> the /.well-known/void trick (described in paragraph 7.2 of the W3C
>>>>> VoID document) is widely adopted.
>>>>
>>>> greed. But it's not a 'trick'. It's called a standard.
>>>
>>> Is it?
>>
>> Yes, I think that RFC5785 [1] can be considered a standard. Unless  
>> you
>> want to suggest that RFCs are sorta not real standards :P
>
> :)
>
> I'm aware that /.well-known is standardized in RFC5785.
>
> It was the the claim that /.well-known/void is "a standard" that I was
> surprised by. It's the sort of thing that could easily be on a Rec  
> track
> somewhere, I just wasn't aware of it.
>
> FWIW I'm perfectly happy with VoID's current status as an Interest  
> Group
> note.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>> On 22 Jul 2011, at 15:39, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 09:59 +0100, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>>>> Frans,
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> Probably VoID metadata/dataset URIs will be easier to discover  
>>>>> once
>>>>> the /.well-known/void trick (described in paragraph 7.2 of the W3C
>>>>> VoID document) is widely adopted.
>>>>
>>>> greed. But it's not a 'trick'. It's called a standard.
>>>
>>> Is it?
>>>
>>> There was me thinking it was a Interest Group Note.
>>>
>>> Is there a newer version than:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/NOTE-void-20110303/
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Received on Friday, 22 July 2011 15:17:17 UTC