- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:58:22 +0200
- To: "Matthias Samwald" <samwald@gmx.at>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, "Reto Bachmann-Gmür" <reto@gmuer.ch>
On 7/20/06, Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at> wrote: > > On the page > http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practices/Use_Cases > I have written that an "ontology of resolvable resources" would be practical in some cases. > > I have created such a small ontology, it can be downloaded / imported from > http://neuroscientific.net/ont/resolvable.owl fyi, While working on an ontology which mapped the Atom Syndication Format (RFC 4287), Reto Bachmann-Gmuer was motivated to write an auxiliary ont [1] which attempts to capture information about resources and their representation(s), based on the notions in WebArch [2]. This was prompted by an apparent mismatch between the WebArch concepts, the resource in RDF and the Atom spec (maybe irony there somewhere as there were plenty of RDF people, and at least two members of the TAG on the Atom WG). Basically expressing the simple notion of an identified entry on a weblog or whatever gets a bit complicated when you bring in the possibility of multiple versions in multiple (human) languages on top of multiple mime types. For what it's worth I believe in the vast majority of cases, including that of ontology terms, the assumption that http scheme URIs (/URIrefs) will be dereferenceable seems entirely reasonable. Where other naming schemes are mapped to URIs this may be problematic, but a 404 isn't the end of the (open) world. Having said that, I can't see any harm in asserting information in RDF/OWL like "there exists a text/html representation of the resource http://example.org", although in such cases the Web server should probably be considered the authority. Cheers, Danny. [1] http://atomowl.org/ontologies/infoatom [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Friday, 21 July 2006 09:58:42 UTC