W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2019

Re: HTML entry point for the RDF Namespace?

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:59:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRrS4kyPakTqXJMRiSFn9uU-BmTT-x5dRFOSGazg9w3hKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Ivan,

I would really recommend adding this human friendly view. It would help a
lot in terms of explanation and I think specifically requiring the html
accept header would hopefully prevent errors.

We already do this with prov - (https://www.w3.org/ns/prov#) and it's been
extremely helpful.

So +1 from my perspective.

Thanks
Paul



On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:55 PM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have just announced, in a separate mail[1] that some minor changes have
> been done on the RDF Core namespace[2]. While at it, I have looked at a
> discussion that occurred on the mailing list a while ago on whether there
> should be some human friendly version of the namespace document (duly
> served with content negotiations).
>
> I have come up with a draft HTML file which is at a temporary URL for now:
>
> https://www.w3.org/1999/02/rdf-syntax.html
>
> the idea is that (simple) HTML file would be at
> https://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns.html and, via conneg, would
> be served if the request requires HTML. However, by setting the right
> conneg priorities, [2] would continue returning Turtle.
>
> The slight fear I have, and for which I would like to get some feedback,
> is as follows. Imagine a buggy RDF implementation that uses some very
> simple tools to fetch [2], and that tool would ask, via some defaults,
> HTML. What will be returned is the no longer RDF but HTML, meaning that
> this RDF environment would break. The question is: is this a realistic
> worry, or am I too cautious? Ie, should we play very defensive and NOT set
> up this human friendly version of the vocabulary, or should we go ahead?
> Obviously, we are talking about aesthetic here and not some functionally
> necessary feature, so we can allow ourselves to be defensive…
>
> Comments?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Dec/0027.html
> [2] https://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
> [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Mar/0092.html
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 16 December 2019 15:59:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:51:41 UTC