W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2006

Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:20:13 +0200
Message-Id: <EB6D8FAB-B303-4EF1-B8B8-A13E2A95C9FB@bblfish.net>
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>

Thanks Danny for helping these threads find each other.

I had a long conversation with Sean B. Palmer on the topic on #swig,  
of which I highlighted some elements here



Is it really "Semantic" content neg that we want? That is only part  
of the problem.
Imagine I only understand the atomOwl vocab [1] and I expect this

<> a :CategoryList;
    :category [ :scheme <http://eg.com/cats/>;
                :term "dog" ];
    :category [ :scheme <http://eg.com/cats/>;
                :term "house" ].

but I receive this

<> a :McDonaldCategoryList;
    :McCategory [ :McScheme <http://eg.com/cats/>;
                :McTerm "dog" ];
    :McCategory [ :McScheme <http://eg.com/cats/>;
                :McTerm "house" ].

Where  in fact

  	:McDonaldCategoryList owl:sameAs :CategoryList .
         :McCategory owl:sameAs :category .
         :McScheme owl:sameAs :scheme .
         :McTerm owl:sameAs :term .

In  that case both documents are in fact semantically identical.

So what one wants is either

  - a way to specify the *vocabulary* the client understands, and  
have the sender  send back content only in that vocabulary, or at  
least add some mappings from its vocab to the one understood by the  
  - or way to specify in detail the relations that will appear in a  
document and the vocabulary used to describe those relations, so that  
by stating that a resource is say a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument, one  
not only knows what types of relations one will find in there, but  
also that one will be able to interpret them.


[1] http://bblfish.net/work/atom-owl/2006-06-06/

On 24 Jul 2006, at 11:39, Danny Ayers wrote:
> Oops, I was a couple of posts out in the first link, should be a
> little less baffling with this one:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jul/ 
> 0139.html
> (thanks Henry!)
> On 7/24/06, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Seems to be a little thread convergence going on. Gmail doesn't seem
>> to allow in-reply-to on two posts, so instead:
>> Re: BioRDF: URI Best Practices
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jul/ 
>> 0141.html
>> Re: expectations of vocabulary
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Jul/0068.html
>> [I've at least one ulterior motive in wanting to see this discussion
>> evolve further. When I get time I want to play with the idea of
>> "semantic cookies" - put the URI of the agent-user's FOAF profile  
>> in a
>> Link: header, server adjusts response appropriately]
>> Cheers,
>> Danny.
>> --
>> http://dannyayers.com
> -- 
> http://dannyayers.com
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 10:20:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:57 UTC