W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2007

Re: feasibility; purl.org/commons

From: <samwald@gmx.at>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:53:49 +0200
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070827145349.194550@gmx.net>
To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, jar@creativecommons.org

EricJ wrote:
>Here are my own reasons for not using
> them in UniProt so far (despite the fact that I recognize that there is a 
> big need for someone to provide URIs for databases without usable URIs).
> 1. Given a PURL with "uniprot" and "P00750", it can't be rewritten to 
> http://beta.uniprot.org/uniprot/P00750.rdf, simply because the current 
> software can only append to but not interpolate into the URL templates! 
> Shouldn't be a big issue, technically, but this is a show-stopper for me.

I would also prefer that the file extensions are preserved, but is it really such a big deal? Requiring the redirect service to fetch the ID from the middle of the URI definitely makes things more complicated, and it is mostly a matter of taste.

> 2. The one-PURL-per-representation approach results in more URIs floating 
> around than I'd be willing to deal with 

I still cannot see where the practical problems should be. "One URI for every file" seems much easier to deal with than content negotiation. But I guess this topic has been discussed way too long here already.

> 3. If you enter a URL in the browser, people (including non-technical 
> people) have to get something useful (see e.g. DOI system), not something 
> that looks like an error page

This can be easily improved. Here is an RDFa-based draft for such a redirect page that I made out of personal interest (not in any way approved by Science Commons):


The page contains the following RDF encoded in RDFa:

@prefix : http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml.
@prefix _6: http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml#.
@prefix owl: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#.
@prefix rdf: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#.
@prefix rdfs: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#.
@prefix xml: http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace.

 <> _6:stylesheet <creativecommons.css>. 

 _5:content rdfs:label "PubMed record 11166570, without commitment as to representation"^^<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral>;
     rdfs:seeAlso <http://purl.org/commons/html/pmid/11166570>,
     owl:sameAs <info:pubmed/11166570>. 

 <http://purl.org/commons/html/pmid/11166570> rdfs:label "PubMed record 11166570, HTML representation". 

 <http://purl.org/commons/xml/pmid/11166570> rdfs:label "PubMed record 11166570, XML representation". 

 <http://purl.org/science/article/pmid/11166570> rdfs:label "The article identified by PubMed record 11166570, without commitment as to representation". 


The embedded RDFa could be extended to tell the client something like "there is a XML version of this, and you can find it at URI...; there is a HTML version of this, and you can find it at URI...". That would be much more transparent and Semantic Web - oriented than content negotiation, right?

Matthias Samwald

Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! 
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
Received on Monday, 27 August 2007 14:54:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:29 UTC