Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

[Niklas Lindström]

Hi Michael,

that's great! If [2] were to be updated with that [1] (i.e. officially
containing RDFa about these URI:s), and would be 303:d to from [3]
(along with anything under that URL), this would be all we need. I
know it hasn't happened for years, but sometimes a nudge at just the
right time may be all it takes..

If not, would you consider updating your interim solution to describe
URI:s under [1]? I mean, since [2] currently uses the real IANA URI:s
(i.e. the "unsanctioned" ones) and those, as Danny cautioned, could
end up e.g. being resolved to documents, breaking semantics (as well
as not being discoverable).

I did a manual (well, vim-macro:ed) conversion of [3] into RDF/XML,
but had to leave to eat easter eggs at my sister's and entertain her
kids. :) It's located at [4] now, and quite similar to the data in
[1]. Note that I do consider [1] much more interesting.

(That said, if anyone would like me to make e.g. an XSLT for turning
[4] into something like [1], just say the word.)

Best regards and happy easter!
Niklas

[1]: 
[2]: 
[3]: 
[4]: 


On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Michael Hausenblas
 wrote:
>
> Nathan, Phil, All,
>
>> and quote:
>> "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be
>>    considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/";
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt
>>
>> obviously all the links defined by:
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
>> (from the atom rfc)
>>
 such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the
 thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not
 already.

 Any guidance?
>
> Yes. Use [1] ...
>
> My motto is: acting rather than talking. So, I took [2] as a starting point
> - which is already in nice XHTML format - and manually added some RDFa.
> After an hour I ended up with [1] (though, to be fair, two Wii games with
> the kids and consuming some Easter eggs also took place in that hour).
>
> So, [1] is really a sort of an interim solution (though, in the distributed
> data world I do expect much more of such fixes) and I encourage Phil, who is
> an editor of [2] to use the template from [1] at the 'official' location.
>
> Happy Easter! (and back to Wii games, for now ;)
>
> Cheers,
>      Michael
>
> [1] http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel
> [2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
>
> --
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
> Ireland, Europe
> Tel. +353 91 495730
> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>
>
>
>> From: Nathan 
>> Organization: webr3
>> Reply-To: 
>> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:14:16 +0100
>> To: Danny Ayers 
>> Cc: Linked Data community 
>> Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
>> Resent-From: Linked Data community 
>> Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:14:54 +
>>
>> Danny Ayers wrote:
>>> On 3 April 2010 00:53, Nathan  wrote:
 Hi All,

 Any guidance on using predicates in linked data / rdf which do not come
 from rdfs/owl. Specifically I'm considering the range of:
  http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
>>>
>>> Can't find a URL that resolves there
>>
>> snap; but that's what rel="edit" and so forth resolves to.
>>
>> see example:
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#ATOMSection
>>
>> and quote:
>> "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be
>>    considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/";
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt
>>
>> obviously all the links defined by:
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
>> (from the atom rfc)
>>
 such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the
 thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not
 already.

 Any guidance?
>>>
>>> By using something as a predicate you are making statements about it. But...
>>>
>>> If you can find IANA terms like this, please use them - though beware
>>> the page isn't the concept. You might have to map them over to your
>>> own namespace, PURL URIs preferred.
>>
>> Would it make sense to knock up an ontology for all the standard
>> link-relations and sameAs them through to the iana uri's?
>>
>> Best, Nathan
>>
>
>
>

Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

[Nathan]

Michael Hausenblas wrote:
> Nathan, Phil, All,
> 
>> and quote:
>> "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be
>>considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/";
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt
>>
>> obviously all the links defined by:
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
>> (from the atom rfc)
>>
 such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the
 thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not
 already.

 Any guidance?
> 
> Yes. Use [1] ...
> 
> My motto is: acting rather than talking. So, I took [2] as a starting point
> - which is already in nice XHTML format - and manually added some RDFa.
> After an hour I ended up with [1] (though, to be fair, two Wii games with
> the kids and consuming some Easter eggs also took place in that hour).
> 
> So, [1] is really a sort of an interim solution (though, in the distributed
> data world I do expect much more of such fixes) and I encourage Phil, who is
> an editor of [2] to use the template from [1] at the 'official' location.
> 
> Happy Easter! (and back to Wii games, for now ;)
> 
> Cheers,
>   Michael
> 
> [1] http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel
> [2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
> 

Thanks Michael :)

and strangely I'm playing the wii w/ kids and eating easter eggs too



Cheers & Happy Easter,

Nathan

Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

[Niklas Lindström]

2010/4/3 Michael Hausenblas :
> Niklas,
>
>> While I have seen definitions of these relations made by the community
>> before (e.g. used directly in AtomOwl, and a complete listing made by
>> Ed Summers, which I unfortunately cannot find now),
>
> You're not peradventure talking about [1], no?
>
> Cheers,
>      Michael
>
> [1] http://mediatypes.appspot.com/

Oh, right. Yes, that's what I had in the back of my mind; I knew my
memory was off on some aspect. :) That's a great asset as well though.
Thanks for the reference!

Best regards,
Niklas

Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

[Michael Hausenblas]

Nathan, Phil, All,

> and quote:
> "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be
>considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/";
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt
> 
> obviously all the links defined by:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
> (from the atom rfc)
> 
>>> such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the
>>> thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not
>>> already.
>>> 
>>> Any guidance?

Yes. Use [1] ...

My motto is: acting rather than talking. So, I took [2] as a starting point
- which is already in nice XHTML format - and manually added some RDFa.
After an hour I ended up with [1] (though, to be fair, two Wii games with
the kids and consuming some Easter eggs also took place in that hour).

So, [1] is really a sort of an interim solution (though, in the distributed
data world I do expect much more of such fixes) and I encourage Phil, who is
an editor of [2] to use the template from [1] at the 'official' location.

Happy Easter! (and back to Wii games, for now ;)

Cheers,
  Michael

[1] http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel
[2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Nathan 
> Organization: webr3
> Reply-To: 
> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:14:16 +0100
> To: Danny Ayers 
> Cc: Linked Data community 
> Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
> Resent-From: Linked Data community 
> Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:14:54 +
> 
> Danny Ayers wrote:
>> On 3 April 2010 00:53, Nathan  wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> Any guidance on using predicates in linked data / rdf which do not come
>>> from rdfs/owl. Specifically I'm considering the range of:
>>>  http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
>> 
>> Can't find a URL that resolves there
> 
> snap; but that's what rel="edit" and so forth resolves to.
> 
> see example:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#ATOMSection
> 
> and quote:
> "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be
>considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/";
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt
> 
> obviously all the links defined by:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
> (from the atom rfc)
> 
>>> such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the
>>> thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not
>>> already.
>>> 
>>> Any guidance?
>> 
>> By using something as a predicate you are making statements about it. But...
>> 
>> If you can find IANA terms like this, please use them - though beware
>> the page isn't the concept. You might have to map them over to your
>> own namespace, PURL URIs preferred.
> 
> Would it make sense to knock up an ontology for all the standard
> link-relations and sameAs them through to the iana uri's?
> 
> Best, Nathan
> 

Re: write enabled web of data / acl/acf/wac etc

[Melvin Carvalho]

2010/4/3 Nathan 

> Hi All,
>
> Simply looking for the best place to discuss acl/acf/wac / write enabled
> web of data etc - mailing list or irc or private contacts - unsure if
> this comes under the banner of "linked data" and thus this mailing list.
>  i.e. whilst I can have a good realtime discussion about rest related
> things, coming up short with regards discussing the aforementioned write
> enabled web of data - any pointers?
>

I would say foaf-protocols [1] and #swig

public-lod tends to be public and open data, imho, but there should be a
growing overlap, especially when sparql 1.1 arrives

[1] http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols


>
> Further, with regards the ESW wiki pages, I've not seen any
> "discussions" yet on articles, and with some of the documents I do have
> notes additions etc to add, but don't want to just ad them ad-hoc
> without at least discussing or running past somebody else.
>
> Many Regards,
>
> Nathan
>
>

Re: write enabled web of data / acl/acf/wac etc

[Michael Hausenblas]

> Simply looking for the best place to discuss acl/acf/wac / write enabled
> web of data etc - mailing list or irc or private contacts - unsure if
> this comes under the banner of "linked data" and thus this mailing list.
>  i.e. whilst I can have a good realtime discussion about rest related
> things, coming up short with regards discussing the aforementioned write
> enabled web of data - any pointers?

IMHO definitely here and on #swig IRC channel.

> Further, with regards the ESW wiki pages, I've not seen any
> "discussions" yet on articles, and with some of the documents I do have
> notes additions etc to add, but don't want to just ad them ad-hoc
> without at least discussing or running past somebody else.

It's a Wiki, so perfectly fine if you edit/comment stuff and the trigger
discussions here and/or IRC.

Great to see write-enabled Linked Data discussions happening again - lot of
work still required till [1] can advance to a stable state ;)


Cheers,
  Michael

[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ReadWriteLinkedData.html

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Nathan 
> Organization: webr3
> Reply-To: 
> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:16:43 +0100
> To: Linked Data community 
> Cc: Michael Hausenblas 
> Subject: write enabled web of data / acl/acf/wac etc
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Simply looking for the best place to discuss acl/acf/wac / write enabled
> web of data etc - mailing list or irc or private contacts - unsure if
> this comes under the banner of "linked data" and thus this mailing list.
>  i.e. whilst I can have a good realtime discussion about rest related
> things, coming up short with regards discussing the aforementioned write
> enabled web of data - any pointers?
> 
> Further, with regards the ESW wiki pages, I've not seen any
> "discussions" yet on articles, and with some of the documents I do have
> notes additions etc to add, but don't want to just ad them ad-hoc
> without at least discussing or running past somebody else.
> 
> Many Regards,
> 
> Nathan

write enabled web of data / acl/acf/wac etc

[Nathan]

Hi All,

Simply looking for the best place to discuss acl/acf/wac / write enabled
web of data etc - mailing list or irc or private contacts - unsure if
this comes under the banner of "linked data" and thus this mailing list.
 i.e. whilst I can have a good realtime discussion about rest related
things, coming up short with regards discussing the aforementioned write
enabled web of data - any pointers?

Further, with regards the ESW wiki pages, I've not seen any
"discussions" yet on articles, and with some of the documents I do have
notes additions etc to add, but don't want to just ad them ad-hoc
without at least discussing or running past somebody else.

Many Regards,

Nathan

Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

[Michael Hausenblas]

Nathan,

> and quote:
> "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be
>considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/";
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt

Just for the record: the current draft of Web Linking is [1] and the
statement above is not present anymore, in there. However, you find
something alike in Appendix C.

Cheers,
  Michael

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09.txt

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Nathan 
> Organization: webr3
> Reply-To: 
> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:14:16 +0100
> To: Danny Ayers 
> Cc: Linked Data community 
> Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
> Resent-From: Linked Data community 
> Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:14:54 +
> 
> Danny Ayers wrote:
>> On 3 April 2010 00:53, Nathan  wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> Any guidance on using predicates in linked data / rdf which do not come
>>> from rdfs/owl. Specifically I'm considering the range of:
>>>  http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
>> 
>> Can't find a URL that resolves there
> 
> snap; but that's what rel="edit" and so forth resolves to.
> 
> see example:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#ATOMSection
> 
> and quote:
> "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be
>considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/";
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt
> 
> obviously all the links defined by:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
> (from the atom rfc)
> 
>>> such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the
>>> thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not
>>> already.
>>> 
>>> Any guidance?
>> 
>> By using something as a predicate you are making statements about it. But...
>> 
>> If you can find IANA terms like this, please use them - though beware
>> the page isn't the concept. You might have to map them over to your
>> own namespace, PURL URIs preferred.
> 
> Would it make sense to knock up an ontology for all the standard
> link-relations and sameAs them through to the iana uri's?
> 
> Best, Nathan
> 

Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

[Michael Hausenblas]

Niklas,

> While I have seen definitions of these relations made by the community
> before (e.g. used directly in AtomOwl, and a complete listing made by
> Ed Summers, which I unfortunately cannot find now),

You're not peradventure talking about [1], no?

Cheers,
  Michael

[1] http://mediatypes.appspot.com/

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Niklas Lindström 
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 14:28:43 +0200
> To: Danny Ayers 
> Cc: Story Henry , , Linked Data
> community 
> Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
> Resent-From: Linked Data community 
> Resent-Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:29:37 +
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I definitely think IETF should place RDF representations at those
> locations, as Henry suggests (e.g. 303 to say
> ). Is there really no
> way we could make this happen? Since the
>  URI:s are used directly
> in many places it would be very beneficial to have those be the direct
> property identifiers. (And since there is really no technology other
> than RDF to precisely document their meaning as relations, not going
> that direct route would necessitate cumbersome indirection.)
> 
> If not, a W3C-sanctioned vocabulary mapping each relation defined at
> [1] would really be the second best. We already have [2] defining a
> subset of these.
> 
> A coordinated community effort could also do of course, as long as it
> was stable, durable and gained consensual support.
> 
> While I have seen definitions of these relations made by the community
> before (e.g. used directly in AtomOwl, and a complete listing made by
> Ed Summers, which I unfortunately cannot find now), I think we may
> need something more centrally defined for these relations, as close to
> official IANA status as possible. Something from the W3C could be
> close enough. Boiling down to discoverability, consensus and
> stability.
> 
> Best regards,
> Niklas
> 
> [1]: 
> 

>
> [2]: 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Danny Ayers  wrote:
>> Henry, I'm pretty sure you'll have all workings on this - all that's
>> needed is a flattened model. I bet it would only take a couple of
>> weeks (months) to prepare that in a form that the W3C would accept as
>> a Note or something. If you can pull together some of your old stuff,
>> I'm happy to draft some text.
>> 
>> It needs doing soon because of the initiatives that hang off Atom are
>> getting interesting. Need to be in there from the get-go.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 3 April 2010 03:56, Danny Ayers  wrote:
>>> About time to do another rev of that thing? The social xg is having
>>> another spin, might be a good time to throw it there.
>>> 
>>> I suspect most folks (yourself there mostly Henry) think this time
>>> around it should be done minimally..?
>>> 
>>> On 3 April 2010 01:29, Story Henry  wrote:
 On 2 Apr 2010, at 23:53, Nathan wrote:
 
> Hi All,
> 
> Any guidance on using predicates in linked data / rdf which do not come
> from rdfs/owl. Specifically I'm considering the range of:
>  http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
 
 Ah is that something you found in the AtomOWL spec?
 
 Perhaps we should just give them other names, until the IETF places RDF
 representations
 at those locations, which I imagine could take forever.
 
 Henry
 
> 
> such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the
> thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not
> already.
> 
> Any guidance?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nathan
> 
 
 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> http://danny.ayers.name
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> http://danny.ayers.name
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

[Kingsley Idehen]

Niklas Lindström wrote:

Hi,

I definitely think IETF should place RDF representations at those
locations, as Henry suggests (e.g. 303 to say
). Is there really no
way we could make this happen? Since the
 URI:s are used directly
in many places it would be very beneficial to have those be the direct
property identifiers. (And since there is really no technology other
than RDF to precisely document their meaning as relations, not going
that direct route would necessitate cumbersome indirection.)

If not, a W3C-sanctioned vocabulary mapping each relation defined at
[1] would really be the second best. We already have [2] defining a
subset of these.

A coordinated community effort could also do of course, as long as it
was stable, durable and gained consensual support.

While I have seen definitions of these relations made by the community
before (e.g. used directly in AtomOwl, and a complete listing made by
Ed Summers, which I unfortunately cannot find now), I think we may
need something more centrally defined for these relations, as close to
official IANA status as possible. Something from the W3C could be
close enough. Boiling down to discoverability, consensus and
stability.

Best regards,
Niklas

[1]: 

[2]: 
  
Yes, but in the meantime the fastest approach would be to put something 
the purl namespace with respective "owl:equivalentClass" and 
"owl:equivalentProperty" .  Sadly, the other approaches just won't 
happen quickly, as already demonstrated en route to Nathan hitting this 
bump.


Kingsley



On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Danny Ayers  wrote:
  

Henry, I'm pretty sure you'll have all workings on this - all that's
needed is a flattened model. I bet it would only take a couple of
weeks (months) to prepare that in a form that the W3C would accept as
a Note or something. If you can pull together some of your old stuff,
I'm happy to draft some text.

It needs doing soon because of the initiatives that hang off Atom are
getting interesting. Need to be in there from the get-go.



On 3 April 2010 03:56, Danny Ayers  wrote:


About time to do another rev of that thing? The social xg is having
another spin, might be a good time to throw it there.

I suspect most folks (yourself there mostly Henry) think this time
around it should be done minimally..?

On 3 April 2010 01:29, Story Henry  wrote:
  

On 2 Apr 2010, at 23:53, Nathan wrote:



Hi All,

Any guidance on using predicates in linked data / rdf which do not come
from rdfs/owl. Specifically I'm considering the range of:
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
  

Ah is that something you found in the AtomOWL spec?

Perhaps we should just give them other names, until the IETF places RDF 
representations
at those locations, which I imagine could take forever.

Henry



such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the
thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not
already.

Any guidance?

Regards,

Nathan

  





--
http://danny.ayers.name

  


--
http://danny.ayers.name






  



--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	  
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software 
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 

Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

[Niklas Lindström]

Hi,

I definitely think IETF should place RDF representations at those
locations, as Henry suggests (e.g. 303 to say
). Is there really no
way we could make this happen? Since the
 URI:s are used directly
in many places it would be very beneficial to have those be the direct
property identifiers. (And since there is really no technology other
than RDF to precisely document their meaning as relations, not going
that direct route would necessitate cumbersome indirection.)

If not, a W3C-sanctioned vocabulary mapping each relation defined at
[1] would really be the second best. We already have [2] defining a
subset of these.

A coordinated community effort could also do of course, as long as it
was stable, durable and gained consensual support.

While I have seen definitions of these relations made by the community
before (e.g. used directly in AtomOwl, and a complete listing made by
Ed Summers, which I unfortunately cannot find now), I think we may
need something more centrally defined for these relations, as close to
official IANA status as possible. Something from the W3C could be
close enough. Boiling down to discoverability, consensus and
stability.

Best regards,
Niklas

[1]: 

[2]: 



On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Danny Ayers  wrote:
> Henry, I'm pretty sure you'll have all workings on this - all that's
> needed is a flattened model. I bet it would only take a couple of
> weeks (months) to prepare that in a form that the W3C would accept as
> a Note or something. If you can pull together some of your old stuff,
> I'm happy to draft some text.
>
> It needs doing soon because of the initiatives that hang off Atom are
> getting interesting. Need to be in there from the get-go.
>
>
>
> On 3 April 2010 03:56, Danny Ayers  wrote:
>> About time to do another rev of that thing? The social xg is having
>> another spin, might be a good time to throw it there.
>>
>> I suspect most folks (yourself there mostly Henry) think this time
>> around it should be done minimally..?
>>
>> On 3 April 2010 01:29, Story Henry  wrote:
>>> On 2 Apr 2010, at 23:53, Nathan wrote:
>>>
 Hi All,

 Any guidance on using predicates in linked data / rdf which do not come
 from rdfs/owl. Specifically I'm considering the range of:
  http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
>>>
>>> Ah is that something you found in the AtomOWL spec?
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should just give them other names, until the IETF places RDF 
>>> representations
>>> at those locations, which I imagine could take forever.
>>>
>>> Henry
>>>

 such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the
 thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not
 already.

 Any guidance?

 Regards,

 Nathan

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://danny.ayers.name
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://danny.ayers.name
>
>