W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2005

(unknown charset) [VM] Report of 2005-06-21 telecon

From: (unknown charset) Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:44:10 +0200
To: (unknown charset) SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050627134410.GA3796@sub00157>

Vocabulary Management Task Force Telecon, 2005-06-21

IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/21-vmtf-irc

    Tom Baker
    Alistair Miles
    Dan Brickley

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0064.html

1. Report from the last Telecon, Jun 07

2. "Basic Steps for Managing an RDF Vocabulary" - next steps

3. "Some Things that Hashless URIs can Name" - next steps

   Http-range has been resolved; the TAG decision on this
   issue should be cited in the VM note [1] (see also [2]).

   Should we we retire the hashless note from our work list?

   Decide to include in the VM note an explanation of how
   to implement redirects when using hashless URIs.

   Note is that this is on the assumption that rdfs/owl
   properties + classes are not themselves info resources.
   The hashless note was an attempt to argue that they are; but
   now not so urgent to explore that option.  This issue could
   confuse people, so perhaps best avoided in the VM note.

   Dublin Core does redirect. Foaf used to -- and should again.
   All purl.org namespaces redirect (sometimes to something
   without a #).  Notion of "information resource" is appealed
   to in TAG finding.  Emphasis is on the vocabulary-describing
   document that you point off to being an info resource.

   ACTION: Danbri try find out how many of the "slash"
   namespaces use redirect at moment (and who might change

   Decide to add placeholder into the note: "Best practices
   for http behavior of classes and properties".  ACTION: Tom

   Namespace documents; at the moment, they say "should make
   available material for people [3,4], which also defines
   information resources:

        By design a URI identifies one resource. We do not
        limit the scope of what might be a resource. The term
        "resource" is used in a general sense for whatever
        might be identified by a URI. It is conventional on the
        hypertext Web to describe Web pages, images, product
        catalogs, etc. as "resource".  The distinguishing
        characteristic of these resources is that all of
        their essential characteristics can be conveyed in
        a message. We identify this set as "information

    If we try to gloss for RDF and OWL community, given Roy
    doc, will need to point to namespace document (webarch).
    These three cites will give our advice some authority.
    People know this is a confusing area; given this decision,
    in the end it is quite simple.  It's just defining
    our terms.  Rather than define "info resource" ourself,
    can use tag architecture link.

    Maybe VM TF could do outreach to major namespace owners,
    to get them to use more OWL, etc, and use that to drive
    OWL adoption, and have others in SWBPD WG adress OWL Full
    vs OWL Lite.  Outreach to vocab communities would be a
    second step, after this current note is done.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html
[2] http://internetalchemy.org/2005/06/victory
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#pr-namespace-documents
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#id-resources


    ACTION: All - Add examples to note.

    ACTION: Danbri try find out how many of the "slash"
    namespaces use redirect at moment (and who might change

    ACTION: Tom to add reference to TAG decision and placeholder
    into the note: "Best practices for http behavior of classes
    and properties".


    Tuesday, Jul 05, 1300 UTC (1500 Amsterdam)

    Zakim: +1.617.761.6200 
    Conference code 8683# ('VMTF')

Dr. Thomas Baker                      baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de
SUB - Goettingen State                            +49-551-39-3883
and University Library                           +49-30-8109-9027
Papendiek 14, 37073 Göttingen
Received on Monday, 27 June 2005 13:47:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:10 UTC