Dear all,
Do we have other approaches besides RDF Forms [1] to represent hypermedia
controls in RDF?
Basically, I’m looking for any of the following:
- representing hyperlinks in RDF (in addition to subject/object URLs)
- representing URI templates [2]
- representing forms (in the HTML sense)
I'm interested in the answers you get to the first and last of your
questions but the middle one I can do. The under used POWDER
Recommendation allows you to make statements about resources based on
URI patterns (with due semantic integrity [1]) - which may or may not be
useful to you. See
Ruben,
2 things I'm aware of and have implemented:
- URI templates: Linked Data API vocabulary
https://code.google.com/p/linked-data-api/wiki/API_Vocabulary
Graphity reuses api:uriTemplate and api:itemTemplate to match request
URIs against ontology classes. The actual template syntax is reused
Hi Ruben,
I haven’t used it (or really read the spec) but you might be interested in
taking a look at the Linked Data Platform 1,2], which provides some patterns
for expressing create/update/delete hypermedia controls in RDF.
I’d be interested to hear what your specific use case is.
//Ed
[1]
Ruben, greetings.
On 2013 Nov 20, at 11:23, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
Do we have other approaches besides RDF Forms [1] to represent hypermedia
controls in RDF?
You _might_ find it interesting to read about HyTime (the Wikipedia page has
reasonable starting links
Hi Phil,
Thanks for the pointer. POWDER is definitely interesting and relevant,
but I’m a bit hesitant to apply regexing.
In general, I’m quite a fan of opaque URLs; that is, let the server maintain
full control.
While HTML GET forms are a level-breaker in that regard, I like the strictness
Hi Martynas,
- URI templates: Linked Data API vocabulary
https://code.google.com/p/linked-data-api/wiki/API_Vocabulary
Cool, I do like that. Have you thought about extending to RFC6570?
Do you know about usage of this vocabulary?
The one thing that I like less is the notion of endpoints.
Hi Ed,
CC: Mark Baker,
I've actually been part of the LDP group;
I fully agreed with Mark's concern on the lack of hypermedia controls [1].
LDP is based on a set of agreements, not on a set of dynamic affordances.
Would have loved to see a proposal such as this one [2] make it,
but it was then
Hi Norman,
Interesting pointer, thanks, I'm amazed to see this existed for so long!
HyTime defines a set of hypertext-oriented element types that [let] document
authors to build hypertext and multimedia presentations in a standardized
way.
The issue is probably to integrate this on the RDF
Ahh, I see you are (at least) two steps ahead of me. Thanks for sending along
those references to previous conversation.
I’m still curious about your use case :-)
//Ed
On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Ruben Verborgh ruben.verbo...@ugent.be wrote:
Hi Ed,
CC: Mark Baker,
I've actually been
Hi Ed,
Forgot to answer this part:
I’d be interested to hear what your specific use case is.
In my research [1], I'm looking at giving machines the same affordances as
people.
Many things on today's Web cannot be done by machines due to a lack of
affordances.
While RDF allows to interpret
Dear all,
(apologise for cross posting)
hereby we would like to remind you of the Call for Contribution (CfC)
for the European Data Forum 2014 (EDF2014, http://2014.data-forum.eu)
that ends 10.12. 2013, 22.00pm CET).
EDF will take place 19th to 20th of March 2014 in Athens, Greece. Hereby
we
12 matches
Mail list logo
