W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2007

Re: Semantic Sitemap extension version 0.93 is out. Now with an implementation

From: <editor@content-wire.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 21:49:55 +0700
Message-ID: <001201c7f227$9b2f6790$b30a010a@waralak>
To: "Giovanni Tummarello" <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, "Linking Open Data" <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>, <deri.ie-research@lists.deri.org>, Leandro M. López (inkel) <inkel.ar@gmail.com>
Hi Giovanni
thanks for the update
I took a quick look and the documentation is neat and makes all sense
when it comes to trying it out - I cant go past unzipping the file ;-)
I cannot find clues as to how to do what it says it does
pointers? tutorials ? simple how to with step by step instructions for clueless would be semantic web uses appreciated
cheers
PD,
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Giovanni Tummarello 
  To: Linking Open Data 
  Cc: semantic-web@w3.org ; deri.ie-research@lists.deri.org ; Leandro M. López (inkel) 
  Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:47 AM
  Subject: Semantic Sitemap extension version 0.93 is out. Now with an implementation


  Greetings all..

  a new version of the Semantic Sitemap extension is available at http://sw.deri.org/2007/07/sitemapextension/  

  The semantic sitemap is meant to simplify and increase efficiency in accessing and indexing sites which offer a large amount of semantic data. Use cases include semantic web clients and search engines. 

  WHATS NEW

  we now have an implementation in java, courtesy of Leandro Lopez (inkel). The implementation currently checks for the existence of a Sitemap and provides a wrapper to the fields.  A next version of the implementation currently being worked on will also support all the known quad serialization formats as described in the current specs. At that point it should be really easy enough to integrate this with any client or server implementation. 

  In detail what's new: 

  * dataset "access options" instead of "representations", 
  * MUST contain the same semantics than the dump loosened to SHOULD contain, 
  * robot.txt example, 
  * Refactored the text,  now each tag description also contains the restrictions. 
  * Explained and made consistent use of the term URI/URLs, 
  * Examples online
  * Implementation 


  OPEN ISSUES:

  should we have an attribute to specify which format the dump is in?
  currently we think that if we do give a very flexible implementation then there is no need. In theory web architecture standards say that one should only have a URL and that format are negotiated. In PRACTICE this doesnt happen for formats which are relatively unknown.. not without configuring the server which is not something we want to force people to do. so in PRACTICE it would seem appropriate to have the format specified in the format to make it easy for those writing the client. 
  but again if we do provide a smart enough client in a public domain implementation then ...

  Thoughts? 

  thanks to the many who contributed to this release, looking forward for more feedback. 

  Giovanni 
Received on Saturday, 8 September 2007 14:47:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:02 UTC