- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:27:26 -0500
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: David Wood <dwood@mindswap.org>, www-tag@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@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 Briefly, 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#" xmlns="http://www.openhealth.org/xmtp#"> <http:GET> <http:Request rdf:parseType="Resource"> <Request-URI rdf:resource="http://example.org/uri" /> <Host rdf:resource="http://example.org/uri" /> <Accept>*/*</Accept> </http:Request> <http:Response rdf:parseType="Resource"> <http:Status>200</http:Status> <Content-Type>text/plain</Content-Type> <Body>This is an example document entity</Body> </http:Response> </http:GET> </rdf:RDF> 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? Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2005 01:27:35 UTC