Re: HTML entry point for the RDF Namespace?

Thanks Paul.

I definitely agree that this would be useful. The difference between Prov and the RDF core is that we did this for Prov from the start, whereas the RDF Core is 20 years old and has never had this. What I am worried about is legacy code.

Ivan

> On 16 Dec 2019, at 16:59, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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# <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 <mailto: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 <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 <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 <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Dec/0027.html>
> [2] https://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns <https://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns>
> [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Mar/0092.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Mar/0092.html>
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C 
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704