In message <[email protected]>, George Oates <[email protected]> writes >Richard Light wrote: >> Sorry: Linked Data jargon. It simply means that if you request this URL >> you get something back. The general LD approach is that you use content >> negotiation to decide what that something might be. If the HTTP request >> has an Accept header which says "I want RDF/XML, please" then that's >> what the server should return. If the HTTP request makes no particular >> demands, it's OK to return standard HTML (i.e. a human-readable set of >> info about the concept). > >Yep, that sounds about right. See Edward's previous suggestions for v1: > >"What kind of data would you like to see in the subject RDF? How about >the same >as appears on the subject pages?" > >- List of works >- Related subjects >- Authors who write about this subject >- Publishers who publish about this subject > >Sound good?
The RDF will typically consist of a set of statements in which the subject is the subject or object. See a random dbpedia page to get the idea: http://dbpedia.org/data/Berlin.rdf So it would include works and related subjects, but maybe not authors or publishers, since they would be linked through the works. The idea of the RDF is that a user can always go back for more, using the URLs in the initial result to request more information. Thus they could take the URLs of the works and use those to find the authors or publishers, if that's what they want to do. The RDF should be raw data, not the sort of summaries you get on the human-readable subject pages. Richard -- Richard Light _______________________________________________ Ol-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
