- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:36:25 +0000
- To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
By the way, although http://semantictweet.com/ no longer functions, Mark Borkum's http://shreddedtweet.org/ is alive and kicking and seems to have some documentation of its structures at http://shreddedtweet.org/about Eg http://shreddedtweet.org/search?q=%40timberners_lee Best On 16 Aug 2012, at 10:41, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org> wrote: > Hey all, > > I'm RDFizing Twitter, and the problem is that its API is not based on > content negotiation and uses a different set of URIs than those > serving HTML to end-users (this issue is not Twitter-specific though). > > For example, these URIs return roughly the same data: > HTML: https://twitter.com/graphityhq/status/235335486707732480 > XML: http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/235335486707732480.xml > > Which URI should be used in RDF? If I'm using SIOC, should it be > > <https://twitter.com/graphityhq/status/235335486707732480> > sioc:content "Graphity #LinkedData..." ; > > or > > <http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/235335486707732480.xml> > sioc:content "Graphity #LinkedData..." ; > > ? > > SIOC also has a special sioc:link property, and then there is > owl:sameAs and dct:isFormatOf, so I could relate the 2 URIs: > > <http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/235335486707732480.xml> > sioc:link <https://twitter.com/graphityhq/status/235335486707732480> > <http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/235335486707732480.xml> > owl:sameAs <https://twitter.com/graphityhq/status/235335486707732480> > <http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/235335486707732480.xml> > dct:isFormatOf <https://twitter.com/graphityhq/status/235335486707732480> > > Would all of these statements be correct? > > Any best practices for modeling in this situation? Advice appreciated. > > Martynas > graphity.org >
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 17:47:23 UTC