As there seems to be some interest in this issue, I created a page on
the W3C SW wiki:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Linking_patterns
to keep track of the situation with the current practices.
Additions and fixes are very welcome.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
ed very easily.
All it takes is a common vocabulary that both publishers and consumers
would understand and agree to.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
esentation they have (try
HEAD http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html with Accept:
application/rdf+xml, pay attention to the Content-Length returned)
[1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.7
--
Vasiliy Faronov
> # provides the canonical definition of .
It's clear what a "definition" is for an RDFS vocabulary term, but not
clear if I can apply this to instance data. Is "authoritative
description" synonymous with "definition"? Does anyone use isDefinedBy
for things other than classes and properties?
--
Vasiliy Faronov
ormat <http://example.net/text/html> .
--
Vasiliy Faronov
s one).
- see:human_readable -- pointer to a description that is human-readable
only.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
a RDFa, conneg, autodiscovery,
follow-your-nose, or any combination thereof).
--
Vasiliy Faronov
long, philosophical thread[2] on www-tag some time ago
where the merits and shortcomings of this change were heavily debated.)
[1]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12#section-8.3.4
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jul/thread.html#msg2
--
Vasiliy Faronov
ever encountered this "clear message" before. Can you please point
me to a couple of places where it is clearly stated?
--
Vasiliy Faronov
s the distinction between the
URIs. Once that is understood and accepted, the 303 becomes kind of
obvious (even more so than the hash approach). I don't have a lot of
experience teaching LD to developers to back up this statement, though.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
Francisco Javier López Pellicer wrote:
> Well, that is not completely true
>
> http://rdf.data-vocabulary.org/rdf.xml
Right, and the adoption of GR signals a turn of tide, if you will :-)
--
Vasiliy Faronov
hnical remarks, though. Notably, I don't
understand how gr:hasManufacturer fits into the picture. I though it
was a property of a product/service, not of an offer as Google seem to
put it.
By the way, you note datatypes as necessary "For valid RDF" in your
how-to; why?
--
Vasiliy Faronov
h data unless it has an
explicit license attached to it, then there is no point in publishing
data without such a license, thus licensing becomes a "must have".
[1] http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=99170
--
Vasiliy Faronov
don't have a special license for
their web content, as they have never needed it. Their reaction? They
just abandon LD altogether.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
e GOLD ontology[1]?
[1] http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/
--
Vasiliy Faronov
DC in RDFa) compile a list of pages made by a given person?
Or one that would compare several GoodRelations-annotated product pages
to select an offering that better matches a user's criteria?
--
Vasiliy Faronov
esire to have a specialized property, and since I can't
readily think of how rdf:value would be better, the co:count solution is
probably fine.
You could make co:count a subproperty of rdf:value, though.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_literal
--
Vasiliy Faronov
t;99"^^xsd:integer a rdfs:Literal .
At least, the FOAF and SIOC ontologies specify rdfs:Literal as the range
of datatype properties.
Also note that you can't really "make sure" that the value is of the
right type, unless people use some kind of RDFS-driven validator, which
I guess isn't common.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
org/TR/rdf-primer/#rdfvalue
--
Vasiliy Faronov
uding things I completely forgot, like
materialization of inverse relations.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
that most clients can
handle this, neither now nor in the near future.
By the way, this pattern is incremental. One doesn't need to do it right
from the beginning.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
ver custom ontologies. In this case,
explicitly spelling out that every ex:BusinessEntity is also a
gr:BusinessEntity may be helpful.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
ptions of the vocabularies
in question. (And SPARQL 1.1 adds URIs for entailment regimes I think?)
Has anything like this been done already?
--
Vasiliy Faronov
e guidelines/examples of which things are generally useful
to materialize and which are not.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
pring.net/
--
Vasiliy Faronov
n the many-URI case, we need multiple links all over the
place to connect the annotations to each other and make them
discoverable.
If no, then neither Y nor Z are discoverable from anywhere in the LD
web, and there's no need to mint these URIs in the first place.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
to materialize rdfs:label for those that don't.
[1] http://sindice.com/developers/inspector
[2] http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/preferred-label.html
--
Vasiliy Faronov
ing a new URI Z. So, even though Y can be linked to,
nobody actually ends up doing this.
Maybe I'm missing some other uses for Y?
--
Vasiliy Faronov
t; materialization itself
Do I understand correctly that Sindice can serve as a kind of a middle
reasoning layer between the original data publisher and the consumers?
I.e. that a client can request data indirectly from Sindice and have all
the implied triples included in the response?
--
Vasiliy Faronov
eful things with it, but it's somewhat harder to set up proper
RDFS/OWL reasoning over it, not to mention the added requirements for
computational power.
I think this is one area where a general "best practice" or design
pattern can be developed.
[1] http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/
--
Vasiliy Faronov
cenario? the
one that I designated with prefix "http:" in this snippet?
Also, I must add that this practice of distinguishing between content
and container doesn't seem to be used widely in the current web of
Linked Data, so people mostly "discard the container" as you say.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
As for dcterms:hasFormat, I don't think it can be used here, but if we
also had a PDF version of the article, we could write:
dcterms:hasFormat .
dcterms:hasFormat .
(and vice-versa)
Further corrections/additions welcome.
[1] http://www.lingvoj.org/ontology.rdf
--
Vasiliy Faronov
esentations, this is easily done. In RDF, there
> are several useful predicates in Dublin Core, e.g., dc:hasVersion and
> dc:hasFormat.
Yes, this sounds like the right thing to do.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
the
one that the outside world is mostly supposed to use, so it makes a lot
of sense to say *something* about it.
Is there any best practice for this?
--
Vasiliy Faronov
Hi Olivier,
Just a note: Launchpad exports some RDF data for every project, for
example [1]. But it's pretty limited and I can't readily find a
description of their vocabulary.
[1] https://launchpad.net/awn/+rdf
--
Vasiliy Faronov
d on RDFLib so should be able to handle Python<->XSD type
conversions automatically (a feature of RDFLib).
It's not a programming language by itself though.
[1] http://code.google.com/p/surfrdf/
--
Vasiliy Faronov
Hello Ravinder,
Have a look at OpenCalais http://www.opencalais.com/
--
Vasiliy Faronov
unity?
I'm also interested if there are existing implementations of the
backlink approach, something in the vein of the "trackback" and
"pingback" protocols that serve this purpose in the non-semantic Web
today.
--
Vasiliy Faronov
38 matches
Mail list logo
