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

RE: [ALL] proposed resolution httpRange-14

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:59:57 -0000
Message-ID: <F5839D944C66C049BDB45F4C1E3DF89D18DC1A@exchange31.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Just a minor point:

> Other important concerns are:
>      - the practical difficulty of using '#' namespace URIs for large

For # namespaces, if the primary resource supported SPARQL queries, then the above practical difficulty disappears.

I.e. for some property named http://www.foo.com/vocab#prop , if the resource http://www.foo.com/vocab supported GET with a SPARQL query as a parameter, then there's no problem for large vocabs.

As a general note, this sort of practice is an example of giving an agent more power to specify its requirements when attempting to discover 'authoritative' semantic web descriptions.  With the current practices (wrt both # and / namespaces) the agent has no power to specify its requirements - it can only GET and HOPE!  I would like to see some fresh discussion of possible best practices that take these kinds of consideration into account.

Cheers, 

Al.






> 
> 
> This issue is impacting the work of the following SWBPD WG 
> Task Forces:
>      - Vocabulary Management
>      - Porting Thesauri
>      - WordNet
>      - RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability
> (see WG homepage for TF list and more information [6])
> 
> 
> The SWBPD WG hope that the TAG will be able to soon reach closure on
> your issue httpRange-14, noting the current SW practice 
> embodied in our
> resolution, and we offer to work with you as appropriate.
> 
> [1] DC URI
> [2] FOAF URI
> [3] CC URI
> [4] Adobe XMP URI
> [5] RSS 1.0 URI
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/#Tasks
> 
> 
> =====
> 
> My understanding of the usual practice is that the chair has 
> discretion 
> in the exact wording of such messages, and the WG does not usually 
> micromanage the wording (but may).
>  From the discussion at the f2f, there may be comments about 
> the tone of 
> my draft; it would be beneficial to have such discussion, or 
> discussion 
> of the actual proposed resolution, by e-mail before next 
> week's telecon 
> (assuming this proposal will be put then).
> 
> =====
> 
> I will be unable to attend on Thursday, if Brian is also unable to 
> attend I appoint the chair as my proxy to propose and vote on 
> this issue.
> 
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:00:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:07 UTC