ISSUE-2: Re: [TED] The potential impact of the semantic Web best practices for publishing RDF vocabularies on the RIF mechanism for referencing RDF/OWL

RIFWG,

At the telecon Tuesday, we will vote to close Issue-2 based on Jos' analysis 
below.  Let us know if you anticipate any objection.

-Chris

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> I am writing this e-mail in fulfillment of action 370 and to report on
> the potential impact of the semantic Web best practices for publishing
> RDF vocabularies [1] on a future RIF mechanism for referring to RDF/OWL
> graphs/ontologies, thereby resolving issue 2.
> 
> 
> The semantic Web best practices note [1] on publishing RDF vocabularies
> describes a number of minimal requirements as well as a number of
> patterns describing how to publish RDF vocabularies and accompanying
> HTML documents on a Web server.
> The issues addressed in the document are related to choosing namespaces
> for vocabularies and the impact of this choice on the configuration of a
> Web server.
> These things are all not terribly interesting for RIF, since we do not
> really have to care about how to publish RDF documents.
> 
> We do care about how RDF is referenced and whether the RDF document can
> in fact be found at this location. In fact, we assume that the reference
> to the RDF document is a URI and that the RDF document can in fact be
> found by dereferencing this URI.
> The latter corresponds to a minimal requirement on semantic Web
> applications formulated in [1]: the RDF graph/owl ontology can be found
> by dereferencing the URI which denotes it.
> 
> So, [1] does not impact the design of the RIF mechanism for referring to
> RDF graphs.
> 
> 
> Best, Jos
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty

Received on Thursday, 8 November 2007 18:33:19 UTC