W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2005

Re: SWBPD WG Resolution Regarding httpRange-14

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:27:26 -0500
Message-Id: <b2d6022e1008a4b8123b2d24d5509029@openhealth.org>
Cc: David Wood <dwood@mindswap.org>, www-tag@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> Could they for example please explain, in their
> ontology, semantics of an HTTP 200 response?

I'm not a member of the SWBPWG but couldn't resist:

see: http://www.openhealth.org/xmtp/HTTP


In N-Triples form:

@prefix http = <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616#> .
<http://example.org/uri> http:GET <mid:xxx-request> .
<mid:xxx-request> rdf:type http:Request .
<http://example.org/uri> http:GET <mid:xxx-response> .
<mid:xxx-response> rdf:type http:Response .

When the request and response messages are not assigned URIs, they are 
treated as anonymous nodes.

An RDF/XML syntax representation:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:http="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616#"
     <http:Request rdf:parseType="Resource">
      <Request-URI rdf:resource="http://example.org/uri" />
      <Host rdf:resource="http://example.org/uri" />
     <http:Response rdf:parseType="Resource">
      <Body>This is an example document entity</Body>

In any case the semantics of the HTTP 200 response is about a 
representation not the resource, no?

It seems the most one can say is that the rdfs:domain of the http:GET 
property is non-hashed URIrefs (i.e. URIs). Is it being proposed that 
anything in this rdfs:domain ought not be an RDF Property?

Staying purely at the OWL level, what does this gain us?

Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2005 01:27:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:08 UTC