RE: Cool URIs, the Semantic Web and Everything

Richard,

> Would changing the sentence
> 
> "In those cases [RDFa, microformats and GRDDL] the RDF data 
> is extracted from the returned HTML document."
> 
> to
> 
> "In those cases, the RDF data is extracted from the HTML 
> document and no separate RDF document is needed."
> 
> address your complaint?

Although feeling uncomfortable being labelled as the 'complainant' :)
I guess that this wording would improve the text. 

Now, due to X-mas approaching, let's relax and quiz a bit
(multiple choice):


Q.I: What is http://sw-app.org/mic.xhtml#i?

1. A URI
2. A URL
3. A foaf:Person
4. Michael Hausenblas
6. An XHTML fragment


Q.II:  What does http://sw-app.org/mic.xhtml#i identfiy?

1. A foaf:Person
2. Michael Hausenblas
4. An XHTML fragment
5. Depends on who looks at it: A Web UA 'sees' a XHTML fragment,
   a SW agent a thing of type foaf:Person
6. Dunno until I do an HTTP GET 


Cheers,
	Michael

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
 Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
---------------------------------------------------------- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cyganiak [mailto:richard@cyganiak.de] 
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 5:26 PM
> To: Hausenblas, Michael
> Cc: Leo Sauermann; semantic-web@w3.org; Leo Sauermann
> Subject: Re: Cool URIs, the Semantic Web and Everything
> 
> Michael,
> 
> On 21 Dec 2007, at 08:23, Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> > In Cool URIs you are
> > referring to a certain
> > setup ('deployment scenarios in which the RDF data and the 
> HTML data 
> > is served separately').
> > Also the figure right before section 3.1 suggests that there is an 
> > explicit RDF document and an HTML document, each with a 
> distinct URL. 
> > As you know, this is not the case with RDFa.
> 
> Would changing the sentence
> 
> "In those cases [RDFa, microformats and GRDDL] the RDF data 
> is extracted from the returned HTML document."
> 
> to
> 
> "In those cases, the RDF data is extracted from the HTML 
> document and no separate RDF document is needed."
> 
> address your complaint?
> 
> The rest of the document's narrative is consistent with use 
> of RDFa, as far as I can tell.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > So, that is were my confusion stems from. I know that due to time 
> > constraints you decided that this is the way it is. It 
> would still be 
> > nice to learn why the figure right before section 3.1 
> (sorry, no label 
> > available) 'shows the desired relationships between a 
> resource and its 
> > describing documents'.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > 	Michael
> >
> > [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Dec/0121.html
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
> > Institute of Information Systems & Information Management JOANNEUM 
> > RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
> >
> > http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Leo Sauermann [mailto:sauermann@dfki.uni-kl.de]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:36 PM
> >> To: Hausenblas, Michael
> >> Cc: semantic-web@w3.org; Leo Sauermann
> >> Subject: Re: Cool URIs, the Semantic Web and Everything
> >>
> >> Hausenblas, Michael schrieb:
> >>
> >> 	Leo,
> >> 	
> >> 	Thanks for your explanation. I remain not totally convinced :)
> >> 	
> >>
> >> good, then give a practical example (using concrete RDFa 
> code) where 
> >> you think some work needs to be done and provide a 
> suggestion how to 
> >> solve it. That you are not convinced may be caused by 
> various reasons 
> >> we don't know about, shine light on them.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 	
> >> 	So, *if* we agree on what you said, IMHO we should
> >> 	reconsider the following paragraph in 'Cool URIs' [1]:
> >> 	
> >> 	'The solutions described in the following apply to deployment 
> >> scenarios
> >> 	in which the RDF data and the HTML data is served 
> separately, such 
> >> as a
> >> 	standalone RDF/XML document
> >> 	along with an HTML document. The metadata can also be 
> embedded in 
> >> HTML,
> >> 	using technologies such as
> >> 	RDFa [RDFa Primer], microformats and other documents to 
> which the 
> >> GRDDL
> >> 	[GRDDL] mechanisms can be applied.
> >> 	In those cases the RDF data is extracted from the returned HTML
> >> 	document.'
> >> 	
> >>
> >> I see no reason for changes until you exactly specify where this 
> >> paragraph contradicts http-range-14 or other TAG 
> resolutions or W3C 
> >> recommendations.
> >>
> >> the point is that RDF/XML, N3, RDFa and GRDDL are 
> mimetypes encoding 
> >> RDF triples while URIs are something used inside these RDF 
> triples, 
> >> so at the beginning both are completly different and do not affect 
> >> each other.
> >>
> >> "Cool uris" is about URIs and not about RDF serialization.
> >>
> >> best
> >> Leo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 	
> >> 	Still unsure if this is just the tip of the iceberg ...
> >> 	
> >>
> >> 	
> >> 	Cheers,
> >> 		Michael
> >> 	
> >> 	[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-cooluris-20071217/#solutions
> >> 	
> >> 	----------------------------------------------------------
> >> 	 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
> >> 	 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
> >> 	 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
> >> 	
> >> 	 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
> >> 	----------------------------------------------------------
> >> 	
> >> 	
> >> 	
> >>
> >> 		-----Original Message-----
> >> 		From: Leo Sauermann [mailto:sauermann@dfki.uni-kl.de]
> >> 		Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:43 AM
> >> 		To: Hausenblas, Michael
> >> 		Cc: semantic-web@w3.org; Leo Sauermann
> >> 		Subject: Re: Cool URIs, the Semantic Web and Everything
> >> 		
> >> 		Hi Michael, RDFa people,
> >> 		
> >> 		The question is if httpRange-14 [2] is valid in 
> the case of 
> >> XHTML+RDFa.
> >> 		
> >> 		The answer is that httpRange-14 is to 
> distinguish URIs for 
> >> information
> >> 		resources ("web documents") from real-world 
> objects (the person
> >> 		"Alice"). As such, it is a recommendation on URIs.
> >> 		
> >> 		RDFa is an encoding of RDF, and typically an 
> RDFa document has two
> >> 		relations to URIs:
> >> 		a) the URI of the RDFa document (=the 
> information resource where I 
> >> can
> >> 		download the RDFa document)
> >> 		b) the URIs used as subjects, predicates, 
> objects inside RDF
> >> 		statements
> >> 		written inside RDFa documents
> >> 		
> >> 		a) is usually a http-200 uri, and a) is an 
> information resource (= 
> >> a
> >> 		document).
> >> 		In the rdf statemetns written inside  A, you 
> would use both URIs 
> >> for
> >> 		real-world objects and information resources.
> >> 		example (I don't know  rdfa syntax by heart 
> now, assume this is 
> >> rdfa):
> >> 		
> >> 		document at www.example.com/homepage/aboutAlice
> >> 		<html>
> >> 		<p
> >> rdf:about="http://www.example.com/identifiers/alice#this"
> >> <http://www.example.com/identifiers/alice#this> >
> >> 		 rdf:type foaf:Person.
> >> 		</p>
> >> 		<p
> >> rdf:about="http://www.example.com/moreidentifiersusing303/bob"
> >> <http://www.example.com/moreidentifiersusing303/bob> >
> >> 		rdf:type foaf:Person
> >> 		</p>
> >> 		</html>
> >> 		
> >> 		assuming this would be valid RDFa, the URI 
> .../aboutAlice is a
> >> 		http-return-200 informaiton resource
> >> 		.../alice#this is a real-world object as it is 
> not a document (as I
> >> 		understand timbl on that)
> >> 		...303/bob is not intuitively distinguishable - 
> if you ignore the
> >> 		rdf:type relation you don't know what it is. So 
> for this uri you do 
> >> a
> >> 		HTTP get and the server would return a 303 
> redirect as described in
> >> 		"cool uris".
> >> 		once oyu did the 303, you knowthat ....303/bob 
> is a real world 
> >> object.
> >> 		
> >> 		so RDFa and 303'/httprange14 are
> >> recommendations caring about
> >> 		different
> >> 		angles, 303 is only concerned about URIs, RDFa 
> about an RDF
> >> 		serialization. Technically they don't interfere.
> >> 		
> >> 		If I would use RDFa much and would like cool 
> uris, I would go for
> >> 		#-uris, they are simple to use and easy to 
> embed in RDFa.
> >> 		but as shown above, you can use any URI you 
> want inside rdfa.
> >> 		
> >> 		best
> >> 		Leo
> >> 		
> >> 		
> >> 		Hausenblas, Michael schrieb:
> >> 		
> >>
> >> 			===
> >> 			Disclaimer: Michael, with his
> >> RDFa-Task-Force-member hat off ;)
> >> 			===
> >> 			
> >> 			As I gathered "Cool URIs for the
> >> Semantic Web" is a Working
> >> 			
> >>
> >> 		Draft, now.
> >> 		
> >>
> >> 			Congrats to Leo and his team, great job!
> >> 			
> >> 			The following might sound like a naive 
> question - and I might
> >> 			have missed something :) - but: Is TAG 
> finding httpRange-14 [2]
> >> 			equally valid in the case of XHTML+RDFa?
> >> 			
> >> 			I've put together some initial thoughts 
> at the ESWiki [3]
> >> 			- any comments welcome!
> >> 			
> >> 			Cheers,
> >> 				Michael
> >> 			
> >> 			[1]
> >> 			
> >>
> >> 		
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Dec/0103.html
> >> 		
> >>
> >> 			[2]
> >> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14
> >> 			[3] http://esw.w3.org/topic/RDFa_vs_RDFXML
> >> 			
> >> 			
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> 			 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
> >> 			 Institute of Information Systems & 
> Information Management
> >> 			 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
> >> 			 Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
> >> 			
> >> 			 <office>
> >> 			    phone: +43-316-876-1193 (fax:-1191)
> >> 			   e-mail: michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at
> >> 			      web: http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
> >> 			
> >> 			 <private>
> >> 			   mobile: +43-660-7621761
> >> 			      web: http://www.sw-app.org/
> >> 			
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> 			
> >> 			
> >> 			
> >>
> >> 		
> >> 		
> >>
> >> 	
> >> 	
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 23 December 2007 08:23:25 UTC