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

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

From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:50:31 -0700
Message-Id: <73F9B6A7-17F8-4C12-8D0B-DCE23DFC2F64@reading.ac.uk>
Cc: "'Danny Ayers'" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, "'Reto Bachmann-Gmür'" <reto@gmuer.ch>, "'Semantic Web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>

   I advise you to stop thinking in terms of documents; the document  
model does not map well to the Semantic Web. It is trivially easy to  
put some intelligence behind a URI, and I have already illustrated  
two possible interpretations of Accept-vocabulary that servers can  
provide, each of which degrades well.

   Consider a reasoner with your mapping ontology already loaded. A  
client requesting O1 receives the o1: triples. A client requesting O2  
returns map(O1, O1-TO-O2). The client does not need to know how to do  
the mapping, nor have the mapping ontology available.

   "Write it in one version and indicate the mapping ontologies". The  
work just happens to be done on the server side, where it is more  
likely that the mappings are known and a reasoner is available.

   I also expect a lot of data to be exposed from non-RDF sources --  
e.g., LDAP and relational databases. Choosing in which vocabulary the  
information should be encoded is something on which Accept-vocabulary  
can have a bearing, and the information is not available in RDF to  
start with.


On  30 Jul 2006, at 7:38 AM, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:

> Say, for example, we have two competing ontologies O1 and O2. In the
> Accept-Vocabularies cases, an ontology developer must prepare two  
> documents
> accordingly to describe a resource.  The alternative is: write one  
> version
> say in O1. and then point to a mapping ontology O1-TO-O2 and  
> indicate the
> URI in its description.
> <> wang:seeMapping http://eg.com/o1-to-o2 .
> <> o1:foo "foo" .
> <> o1:bar "bar" .
> <> o1:....
> The increased cost is one extra statement.  But the increased cost for
> Accept-Vocabulary is one extra document. like,
> <> o1:foo "foo" .
> <> o1:bar "bar" .
> <> o1:....
> ----
> <> o2:foo "foo" .
> <> o2:bar "bar" .
> <> o2:....
> Which way is cheaper?  What would you do, had you have similar  
> choice? To
> implement a server logic to take HTTP header and return  
> accordingly. Or
> write it in one version and indicate the mapping ontologies?
Received on Sunday, 30 July 2006 16:51:09 UTC

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