- From: Bob Ferris <zazi@smiy.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:08:27 +0200
- To: public-rww@w3.org
Hi bergi, On 9/21/2011 1:22 AM, bergi wrote: > Am 15.09.2011 12:56, schrieb Bob Ferris: >> Hi bergi, >> >> after I've reviewed your proposal a bit deeper, here are my remarks: >> >> 1. Vocabulary/Ontology specification documentation: >> - it might be good to introduce a PURL (e.g. purl.org) for your >> vocabulary, which also do content negotiation (let me know if you'll >> need help on this) > > It's my server, so I can configure that. > >> - you should include references for accessing alternative serialisations >> of your vocabulary, e.g., in Turtle, RDF/XML, ... > > It's already there [1]. I had to prepare that for specgen. Yes, I know. However, with "references" I had visible links from [1] to [2] and [3] in mind ;) > >> - you should include references to downloadable files of your outlined >> example (e.g. in different serialisations) > > I've already created a template for specgen6. It's not finished now, but > this version will include links to the examples. Cool! (Btw, SpecGen6 is now located at GitHub as well, see [4] ;) ) > >> - it might be good to include a further example that makes use of the >> tac:graph property > > Good idea, but that will take some time. I'm very busy at the moment. Okay, no problem. Take your time. > >> >> 2. The TAC Vocabulary: >> - I really like the filter approach with setting a subject, predicate >> and object as needed >> - I would remove the dependency to the RDF Reification Vocabulary from >> tac:subject, tac:predicate and tac:object properties, since the sub >> property relation do not really add any value to your intended modelling > > Also I wasn't sure if I should add it or not. I just wanted some > documentation for the properties. But it may be the best to have this > documentation in the TAC ontology. Yep, I think that providing a definition for these terms in the TAC specification might be enough. > >> - the tac:graph property is really fine, however, what about single >> statements - I know this is still a problem in general and especially >> the RDF WG Graph Task Force [1] tries to enlight this topic a bit. >> However, in general RDF Graphs that consist of one statement are mess, >> if they exist where they do not really have to existing. That's why, I >> would vote one more time for statement identifier (see [2]). They could >> also be utilized to cover the circles use case as well, i.e., the >> circles content will be represented with a RDF Graph enclosure and due >> to the fact that each statement can be identified via a statement >> identifier, it can be utilised in multiple graphs. What do you think >> about this? (Albeit, one could utilise RDF Graphs here as well to >> enclose a full resource-description (e.g. a post)). > > I didn't had time to read all that stuff. But a single property like > tac:statement, would be fine, or? Yep, I think that would be enough. > >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Bo >> >> >> PS: It might be interesting to see an example that utilises the TAC >> Vocabulary and a combined role-group-modelling > > It's on the todo list... Cool! Cheers, Bo [1] http://ns.bergnet.org/tac/0.1/triple-access-control.html [2] http://ns.bergnet.org/tac/0.1/triple-access-control.rdf [3] http://ns.bergnet.org/tac/0.1/triple-access-control.ttl [4] https://github.com/zazi/specgen
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 10:09:02 UTC