[VM] Response to reviews - attn DavidB and Andreas

The Vocabulary Management Task Force would like to propose
"Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies"
[1] for publication as a Working Draft.

In recent VM telecons [2], we have been discussing the reviews
provided by David Booth and Andreas Harth.  We would like
to ask David and Andreas now to look at our notes (below)
and let us know if they agree with our request to publish a
Working Draft.

We just discussed this request on the Feb 6 SWBPD telecon
and agreed on the following timetable:

-- David Booth would like to propose some words on how to select
   which type of URI to use.  We have asked him to provide this
   before the VM telecon of Feb 14.

-- Next VM telecons are on Feb 7 and Feb 14 [3].

-- Having heard back from David and Andreas and received text
   from David, by Feb 17 we post a proposal to the list to
   publish as a Working Draft.

-- In the Feb 20 telecon, SWBPD takes a decision.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/
[2] Recent telecons
    2006-01-24: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0125.html
    2006-01-31: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0180.html
[3] Next telecons (weekly)
    2005-02-07 Tue 1500 UTC http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060207
    2005-02-14 Tue 1500 UTC http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060214


Responses to reviews

    --   David Booth review
         -- Global suggestions
            G1. To discuss trade-offs between hash and slash URIs
                Response: Ralph has addressed this with added text in the
                introduction. David has not yet indicated whether he is 

            G2. To avoid purl.org recipes, which violate TAG resolution 
                with 302 redirect code.

                Problem with purl.org: It is not enough to change all 302s to
                303s because 302 is appropriate for most URIs.  So the purl.org
                maintainers would have to implement a feature for users to
                specify that some resource is a non-information resource.
                This would require changes to the database.  Are there any
                options to do a double redirection? I.e. if purl returns a
                302 redirect, then my own server does a 303.  On Jan 17, decided
                to clarify with TAG whether inferences are supposed to be made
                already on the initial response code.
                ACTION (DONE Jan 17): Alistair drafted the question (i.e., that only the
                initial response code matters) for discussion in BPD, then to send to TAG:
                This draft note to TAG
                -- suggests they coin a URI for class "resource"
                   (tag:informationResource) so that things like rdfs:Class,
                   owl:Class, and rdf:Property could be declared disjoint with it.
                -- requests clarification on what implication one can draw when
                   303 is returned as opposed to 200 ("X is a tag:infoResource").

                (Note: In follow-up, David Booth suggested
                a draft "HTTP URI-Identity-Algorithm",
                out of scope for the VM TF per se:

                ACTION - DONE: Alistair put the purl.org material into an Appendix.

         -- Specific recipes
            Recipe 3.  Interpretation of a fragment identifier in the
                       presence of 303 redirects is unclear, so recipe
                       should note that browser may or may not apply
                       fragment identifier to secondary URI.

         -- Editorial suggestions
            E1. Shorter URIs in the examples would be better.
                Alistair would rather leave the longer URIs for now because
                a UK server is configured to support them, see
                Ralph suggests using w3c URIs in the final version (with
                shorter URIs for the examples).

            E2. At the beginning of each recipe, say what the URIs would return.

                Alistair proposes to illustrate this graphically, so added images
                David Booth actually intended simply to spell out which URIs
                are redirected to.  Ralph wonders whether the images really add any
                new information.

                On Jan 18, Alistair reorganized recipes 1 and
                2, adding short description of outcomes as
                per Booth suggestion.  Added examples with
                expected outcomes for purpose of testing.
                Wants to organize the rest like this when
                IE6 bug resolved.

    --   Andreas Harth review
         -- The document has too many choices - suggests
            cutting down to 3 or 4 covering 80% of the cases.
         -- Suggests content negotiation instead of mod_rewrite
            modules.  Response at:
         -- Suggests mod_alias instead of mod_rewrite.
         -- Maybe put purl.org examples into an appendix.

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, 6 February 2006 19:39:55 UTC