- From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 01:00:20 +0100
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, xiao@renci.org, www-tag@w3.org
On 6 Apr 2010, at 00:47, Nathan wrote:
>
> Perhaps the real question is: does an ontology weigh in heavily enough
> to be considered a definition of syntax, in the specific use case of a
> functionality dependent http verb?
No, you can mix and match ontologies. Ontologies do not have any impleication
as to syntax. Any XML doc out there could be mapped to an rdf graph, expressed
in an ontology, and furthermore there are a dozen rdf syntaxes out there. This is
why trying to tie this into mime types is really the wrong way to go about things.
I think what you really want is something like SPARQL, or even SPARUL. There
is a method there to do updates to graphs, and it is easy with a query to find out
what types of relations the server knows of. Eg you could ask:
SELECT ?p
WHERE { [] ?p ?o }
Which would tell you all the classes it knew of.
Henry
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 00:01:12 UTC