Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
Hi all! Has anyone gone further in making this happen? Should we form some sort of workforce to approach and work with IANA to get URI:s and RDF for their registries (at least link relations and mime types come to mind)? (It is certainly asked for, as this recent question at SemanticOverflow indicates: http://www.semanticoverflow.com/questions/639/is-there-a-namespace-to-describe-mimetypes-and-encodings.) Best regards, Niklas On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org wrote: Thanks a lot Phil (for the clarification and the explanation). You helped indeed much more than you think you did, IMO ;) Agree to FUP with mnot on HTTP WG's mailing list, maybe with an XSLT handy, as you suggest. Cheers, Michael -- 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: Phil Archer p...@philarcher.org Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:22:16 +0100 To: Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org Cc: Niklas Lindström lindstr...@gmail.com, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com, nat...@webr3.org, Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com, Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology? Hi all, Thanks for keeping me in this loop and apologies for radio silence thus far. On a theoretical level - making the link registry available as data is, clearly, a jolly good idea and should happen. On a practical level I am sorry to say I don't think I can help. In the e-mail that Michael sent to bring me in to this discussion he said that I was an editor of the Atom registry. Sorry, no, I'm not. The ATOM Link registry is under the control of the IESG [1]. To get 'describedby' in there I had to send an e-mail to IANA [2]. But... it's all meant to be temporary. Version 09 of Mark Nottingham's HTTP Link header Internet Draft has just been published and, if, as we've been hoping for longer than I can remember, it becomes a full RFC then the ATOM Link registry will be replaced by a new registry [3]. The current XML version of the registry has a bunch of declarations that suggest that IANA is open to making different versions available if they can be automated. An XSLT that produced triples would be pretty simple I guess (linked GRDDL-style?) The informal place to raise issues around MNot's draft is the HTTP WG's mailing list (see announcement at [4]). Mark may be open to persuasion on seeking a data version of the registry. Alternatively one could write directly to IANA. Sorry I can't be of more direct practical help. Phil. [1] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2009Feb/0007.html [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09 [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010AprJun/0014.html Niklas Lindström wrote: Kingsley, 2010/4/6 Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com: Niklas Lindström wrote: Niklas, Nice! I would once again suggest adding local owl:equivalentProperty assertions which enables a reasoner to treat the IANA URIs as synonyms. This is in line with what I like to call the: owl:shameAs pattern :-) Kingsley Hi Kingsley, thanks! Yes, I think that'd be good. But my sketch already describes the IANA URI:s directly (by, unsolicitedly, using @xml:base=http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/;), so *if* that RDF (or preferably Michael's richer and RDFa-based one) were official, we wouldn't need that, right? (As those would be self-referential statements..) Otherwise, if we were to mint our own (community official) URI:s for each of these properties, I'd agree that owl:equivalentProperty should definitely be there.. .. Well, unless it would be decided in the future that values in @rel:s at least in Atom are to be viewed as *indirect* references to relations via a document (akin to e.g. foaf:interest). Of course, that's not the case in XHTML+RDFa, but for the default names in @rel:s there the IANA URI:s aren't used (we have the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#-based ones instead). So to nail down the definitions of (the nature of) the things the IANA relation URI:s identify, we'd either have to make it clear that they *are* relations (i.e. properties) in the RDF sense (and object-properties in the OWL sense), or that they're not. If it's undefined, we still can't really make any statements about what they are, even if we make up our own properties based on how we view them. (Well maybe, if it was declared that their precise meaning will be perpetually undefined.) So if they (the URI:s) are (direct references to relations), it'd be wonderful to have IANA publish some kind of RDF discoverable via [1] to make that clear. Thing is that we need RDF data representation now
Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
On Apr 3, 2010, at 21:45 , Niklas Lindström wrote: 2010/4/3 Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org: 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! +1 Ivan Best regards, Niklas Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
Ed, Would it be hard to remove the empty literal assertions? e.g. Fixed now. Dunno why I had it there in the first place ;) It's interesting that the latest efforts to create a Link Relation Registry seem to be intentionally avoiding publishing machine readable data for the registry [1]. I was wondering if Mark Nottingham's efforts to revamp link relations might present a good opportunity for us to lobby the IETF to start publishing a bit of RDFa for the link relations registry... Agree! Let's lobby :) Cheers, Michael -- 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: Ed Summers e...@pobox.com Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:37:49 -0400 To: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology? Resent-From: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Resent-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:38:22 + Hi Michael, Would it be hard to remove the empty literal assertions? e.g. -- http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/alternate a awol:RelationType ; rdfs:label alternate ; dcterms:dateAccepted ; dcterms:description ; rdfs:isDefinedBy http://www.iana.org/go/rfc4287 . -- It's interesting that the latest efforts to create a Link Relation Registry seem to be intentionally avoiding publishing machine readable data for the registry [1]. I was wondering if Mark Nottingham's efforts to revamp link relations might present a good opportunity for us to lobby the IETF to start publishing a bit of RDFa for the link relations registry... //Ed [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09#appendix-A
Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
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'm not totally sure if I understand but I guess the answer would be yes ;) It's interesting that you've modelled the relation-type as RDF properties in [4] whereas I turned them (in [1]) into instances of the class 'awol:RelationType' from the AtomOwl vocabulary. Any thoughts? Cheers, Michael -- 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 lindstr...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:46:29 +0200 To: Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org Cc: nat...@webr3.org, Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com, Phil Archer p...@philarcher.org, Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology? 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]: http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel [2]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml [3]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/ [4]: http://bitbucket.org/niklasl/tripleheap/src/tip/iana-link-relations.rdf On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org 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 nat...@webr3.org Organization: webr3 Reply-To: nat...@webr3.org Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:14:16 +0100 To: Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com Cc: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology? Resent-From: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:14:54 + Danny Ayers wrote: On 3 April 2010 00:53, Nathan nat...@webr3.org 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
Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
Niklas, Nice! I would once again suggest adding local owl:equivalentProperty assertions which enables a reasoner to treat the IANA URIs as synonyms. This is in line with what I like to call the: owl:shameAs pattern :-) Kingsley Hi Kingsley, thanks! Yes, I think that'd be good. But my sketch already describes the IANA URI:s directly (by, unsolicitedly, using @xml:base=http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/;), so *if* that RDF (or preferably Michael's richer and RDFa-based one) were official, we wouldn't need that, right? (As those would be self-referential statements..) Otherwise, if we were to mint our own (community official) URI:s for each of these properties, I'd agree that owl:equivalentProperty should definitely be there.. .. Well, unless it would be decided in the future that values in @rel:s at least in Atom are to be viewed as *indirect* references to relations via a document (akin to e.g. foaf:interest). Of course, that's not the case in XHTML+RDFa, but for the default names in @rel:s there the IANA URI:s aren't used (we have the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#-based ones instead). So to nail down the definitions of (the nature of) the things the IANA relation URI:s identify, we'd either have to make it clear that they *are* relations (i.e. properties) in the RDF sense (and object-properties in the OWL sense), or that they're not. If it's undefined, we still can't really make any statements about what they are, even if we make up our own properties based on how we view them. (Well maybe, if it was declared that their precise meaning will be perpetually undefined.) So if they (the URI:s) are (direct references to relations), it'd be wonderful to have IANA publish some kind of RDF discoverable via [1] to make that clear. Best regards, Niklas [1]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
Niklas Lindström wrote: Niklas, Nice! I would once again suggest adding local owl:equivalentProperty assertions which enables a reasoner to treat the IANA URIs as synonyms. This is in line with what I like to call the: owl:shameAs pattern :-) Kingsley Hi Kingsley, thanks! Yes, I think that'd be good. But my sketch already describes the IANA URI:s directly (by, unsolicitedly, using @xml:base=http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/;), so *if* that RDF (or preferably Michael's richer and RDFa-based one) were official, we wouldn't need that, right? (As those would be self-referential statements..) Otherwise, if we were to mint our own (community official) URI:s for each of these properties, I'd agree that owl:equivalentProperty should definitely be there.. .. Well, unless it would be decided in the future that values in @rel:s at least in Atom are to be viewed as *indirect* references to relations via a document (akin to e.g. foaf:interest). Of course, that's not the case in XHTML+RDFa, but for the default names in @rel:s there the IANA URI:s aren't used (we have the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#-based ones instead). So to nail down the definitions of (the nature of) the things the IANA relation URI:s identify, we'd either have to make it clear that they *are* relations (i.e. properties) in the RDF sense (and object-properties in the OWL sense), or that they're not. If it's undefined, we still can't really make any statements about what they are, even if we make up our own properties based on how we view them. (Well maybe, if it was declared that their precise meaning will be perpetually undefined.) So if they (the URI:s) are (direct references to relations), it'd be wonderful to have IANA publish some kind of RDF discoverable via [1] to make that clear. Thing is that we need RDF data representation now, and if we put the linked data somewhere (some data space) ASAP we can point to what will someday exist in an IANA data space -- the shameAs pattern is a productive mechanism for letting folks like IANA understand why this is so important etc. :-) Got to be fast :-) Best regards, Niklas [1]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/* -- 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?
Michael, On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org wrote: Ed, Would it be hard to remove the empty literal assertions? e.g. Fixed now. Dunno why I had it there in the first place ;) Nice! It's interesting that the latest efforts to create a Link Relation Registry seem to be intentionally avoiding publishing machine readable data for the registry [1]. I was wondering if Mark Nottingham's efforts to revamp link relations might present a good opportunity for us to lobby the IETF to start publishing a bit of RDFa for the link relations registry... Agree! Let's lobby :) Hear hear! :) Still, those statements at [1] indicates that this might need some further discussion.. My gut feeling is that if IANA servers are hit with requests for [2]:s anyhow (a reasonable effect of those already being specified), a 303 to something off-site (e.g. purl.org) wouldn't put much more strain on them. And would be so very beneficial to the linked data web (which should use caching of anything central anyway; for a long time). Best regards, Niklas [1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09#appendix-A [2]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/* Cheers, Michael -- 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: Ed Summers e...@pobox.com Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:37:49 -0400 To: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology? Resent-From: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Resent-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:38:22 + Hi Michael, Would it be hard to remove the empty literal assertions? e.g. -- http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/alternate a awol:RelationType ; rdfs:label alternate ; dcterms:dateAccepted ; dcterms:description ; rdfs:isDefinedBy http://www.iana.org/go/rfc4287 . -- It's interesting that the latest efforts to create a Link Relation Registry seem to be intentionally avoiding publishing machine readable data for the registry [1]. I was wondering if Mark Nottingham's efforts to revamp link relations might present a good opportunity for us to lobby the IETF to start publishing a bit of RDFa for the link relations registry... //Ed [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09#appendix-A
Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
Kingsley, 2010/4/6 Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com: Niklas Lindström wrote: Niklas, Nice! I would once again suggest adding local owl:equivalentProperty assertions which enables a reasoner to treat the IANA URIs as synonyms. This is in line with what I like to call the: owl:shameAs pattern :-) Kingsley Hi Kingsley, thanks! Yes, I think that'd be good. But my sketch already describes the IANA URI:s directly (by, unsolicitedly, using @xml:base=http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/;), so *if* that RDF (or preferably Michael's richer and RDFa-based one) were official, we wouldn't need that, right? (As those would be self-referential statements..) Otherwise, if we were to mint our own (community official) URI:s for each of these properties, I'd agree that owl:equivalentProperty should definitely be there.. .. Well, unless it would be decided in the future that values in @rel:s at least in Atom are to be viewed as *indirect* references to relations via a document (akin to e.g. foaf:interest). Of course, that's not the case in XHTML+RDFa, but for the default names in @rel:s there the IANA URI:s aren't used (we have the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#-based ones instead). So to nail down the definitions of (the nature of) the things the IANA relation URI:s identify, we'd either have to make it clear that they *are* relations (i.e. properties) in the RDF sense (and object-properties in the OWL sense), or that they're not. If it's undefined, we still can't really make any statements about what they are, even if we make up our own properties based on how we view them. (Well maybe, if it was declared that their precise meaning will be perpetually undefined.) So if they (the URI:s) are (direct references to relations), it'd be wonderful to have IANA publish some kind of RDF discoverable via [1] to make that clear. Thing is that we need RDF data representation now, and if we put the linked data somewhere (some data space) ASAP we can point to what will someday exist in an IANA data space -- the shameAs pattern is a productive mechanism for letting folks like IANA understand why this is so important etc. :-) absolutely. But do you think we should describe and use the IANA URI:s directly as properties, or that we need to mint new URI:s for them? The location of the document(s) containing these descriptions may very well be unreachable from iana.org for now (albeit less than ideal), but if we need to mint new ones, we cannot really say the iana.org ones are properties, right*? Since if they are, we should just use them.. Got to be fast :-) True. And durable. ;) Best regards, Niklas [*] = Excluding owl:equivalentProperty as well since it's range is rdf:Property (via rdfs:subPropertyOf). [1]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/* -- 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?
Michael, 2010/4/6 Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org: 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'm not totally sure if I understand but I guess the answer would be yes ;) Nice. I mean to the effect of minting something like http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel#self etc. for each of them. :) It's interesting that you've modelled the relation-type as RDF properties in [4] whereas I turned them (in [1]) into instances of the class 'awol:RelationType' from the AtomOwl vocabulary. Any thoughts? Ah, yes. I just made a minimalistic set of statements about them, with only RDF semantics. Via RDFS and OWL your statements entail mine, since awol:RelationType is a rdfs:subClassOf owl:ObjectProperty (and, via that, of rdf:Property). If IANA wants to use RDF to define the link relations (which I assume all of us here think they should), the question remains how rich semantics they're willing to add to the definitions.) Best regards, Niklas Cheers, Michael -- 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 lindstr...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:46:29 +0200 To: Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org Cc: nat...@webr3.org, Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com, Phil Archer p...@philarcher.org, Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology? 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]: http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel [2]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml [3]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/ [4]: http://bitbucket.org/niklasl/tripleheap/src/tip/iana-link-relations.rdf On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org 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 nat...@webr3.org Organization: webr3 Reply-To: nat...@webr3.org Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:14:16 +0100 To: Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com Cc: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: Using predicates which have
Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
Thanks a lot Phil (for the clarification and the explanation). You helped indeed much more than you think you did, IMO ;) Agree to FUP with mnot on HTTP WG's mailing list, maybe with an XSLT handy, as you suggest. Cheers, Michael -- 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: Phil Archer p...@philarcher.org Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:22:16 +0100 To: Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org Cc: Niklas Lindström lindstr...@gmail.com, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com, nat...@webr3.org, Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com, Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology? Hi all, Thanks for keeping me in this loop and apologies for radio silence thus far. On a theoretical level - making the link registry available as data is, clearly, a jolly good idea and should happen. On a practical level I am sorry to say I don't think I can help. In the e-mail that Michael sent to bring me in to this discussion he said that I was an editor of the Atom registry. Sorry, no, I'm not. The ATOM Link registry is under the control of the IESG [1]. To get 'describedby' in there I had to send an e-mail to IANA [2]. But... it's all meant to be temporary. Version 09 of Mark Nottingham's HTTP Link header Internet Draft has just been published and, if, as we've been hoping for longer than I can remember, it becomes a full RFC then the ATOM Link registry will be replaced by a new registry [3]. The current XML version of the registry has a bunch of declarations that suggest that IANA is open to making different versions available if they can be automated. An XSLT that produced triples would be pretty simple I guess (linked GRDDL-style?) The informal place to raise issues around MNot's draft is the HTTP WG's mailing list (see announcement at [4]). Mark may be open to persuasion on seeking a data version of the registry. Alternatively one could write directly to IANA. Sorry I can't be of more direct practical help. Phil. [1] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2009Feb/0007.html [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09 [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010AprJun/0014.html Niklas Lindström wrote: Kingsley, 2010/4/6 Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com: Niklas Lindström wrote: Niklas, Nice! I would once again suggest adding local owl:equivalentProperty assertions which enables a reasoner to treat the IANA URIs as synonyms. This is in line with what I like to call the: owl:shameAs pattern :-) Kingsley Hi Kingsley, thanks! Yes, I think that'd be good. But my sketch already describes the IANA URI:s directly (by, unsolicitedly, using @xml:base=http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/;), so *if* that RDF (or preferably Michael's richer and RDFa-based one) were official, we wouldn't need that, right? (As those would be self-referential statements..) Otherwise, if we were to mint our own (community official) URI:s for each of these properties, I'd agree that owl:equivalentProperty should definitely be there.. .. Well, unless it would be decided in the future that values in @rel:s at least in Atom are to be viewed as *indirect* references to relations via a document (akin to e.g. foaf:interest). Of course, that's not the case in XHTML+RDFa, but for the default names in @rel:s there the IANA URI:s aren't used (we have the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#-based ones instead). So to nail down the definitions of (the nature of) the things the IANA relation URI:s identify, we'd either have to make it clear that they *are* relations (i.e. properties) in the RDF sense (and object-properties in the OWL sense), or that they're not. If it's undefined, we still can't really make any statements about what they are, even if we make up our own properties based on how we view them. (Well maybe, if it was declared that their precise meaning will be perpetually undefined.) So if they (the URI:s) are (direct references to relations), it'd be wonderful to have IANA publish some kind of RDF discoverable via [1] to make that clear. Thing is that we need RDF data representation now, and if we put the linked data somewhere (some data space) ASAP we can point to what will someday exist in an IANA data space -- the shameAs pattern is a productive mechanism for letting folks like IANA understand why this is so important etc. :-) absolutely. But do you think we should describe and use the IANA URI:s directly as properties, or that we need to mint new URI:s for them? The location of the document(s) containing these descriptions may very well be unreachable from iana.org for now
Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
Hi Michael, Would it be hard to remove the empty literal assertions? e.g. -- http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/alternate a awol:RelationType ; rdfs:label alternate ; dcterms:dateAccepted ; dcterms:description ; rdfs:isDefinedBy http://www.iana.org/go/rfc4287 . -- It's interesting that the latest efforts to create a Link Relation Registry seem to be intentionally avoiding publishing machine readable data for the registry [1]. I was wondering if Mark Nottingham's efforts to revamp link relations might present a good opportunity for us to lobby the IETF to start publishing a bit of RDFa for the link relations registry... //Ed [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09#appendix-A
Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
Hi, I definitely think IETF should place RDF representations at those locations, as Henry suggests (e.g. 303 to say http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation.rdf). Is there really no way we could make this happen? Since the http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/* 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]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09#section-6.2.2 [2]: http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com 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 danny.ay...@gmail.com 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 henry.st...@bblfish.net 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?
Niklas Lindström wrote: Hi, I definitely think IETF should place RDF representations at those locations, as Henry suggests (e.g. 303 to say http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation.rdf). Is there really no way we could make this happen? Since the http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/* 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]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09#section-6.2.2 [2]: http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# 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 danny.ay...@gmail.com 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 danny.ay...@gmail.com 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 henry.st...@bblfish.net 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, 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 lindstr...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 14:28:43 +0200 To: Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com Cc: Story Henry henry.st...@bblfish.net, nat...@webr3.org, Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology? Resent-From: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org 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 http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation.rdf). Is there really no way we could make this happen? Since the http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/* 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]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09#section-6.2.2 [2]: http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com 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 danny.ay...@gmail.com 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 henry.st...@bblfish.net 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?
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 nat...@webr3.org Organization: webr3 Reply-To: nat...@webr3.org Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:14:16 +0100 To: Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com Cc: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology? Resent-From: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:14:54 + Danny Ayers wrote: On 3 April 2010 00:53, Nathan nat...@webr3.org 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, 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 nat...@webr3.org Organization: webr3 Reply-To: nat...@webr3.org Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:14:16 +0100 To: Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com Cc: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology? Resent-From: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:14:54 + Danny Ayers wrote: On 3 April 2010 00:53, Nathan nat...@webr3.org 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 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 hoorah! Cheers Happy Easter, Nathan
Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
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]: http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel [2]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml [3]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/ [4]: http://bitbucket.org/niklasl/tripleheap/src/tip/iana-link-relations.rdf On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org 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 nat...@webr3.org Organization: webr3 Reply-To: nat...@webr3.org Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:14:16 +0100 To: Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com Cc: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology? Resent-From: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:14:54 + Danny Ayers wrote: On 3 April 2010 00:53, Nathan nat...@webr3.org 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?
On 3 April 2010 00:53, Nathan nat...@webr3.org 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 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. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
Danny Ayers wrote: On 3 April 2010 00:53, Nathan nat...@webr3.org 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
