Simon,
On 29 Jan 2009, at 21:52, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
Congratulations!
Thanks!
- <http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/source/browse/trunk/liftSSM/SSM2void.xslt
> uses void:uriPattern instead of void:uriRegexPattern and so does
the example output under <http://rdfs.org/ns/void-guide#sec_4_3_Publishing_tools
>.
I really like the addition of void:uriRegexPattern!
We'll batch some minor fixes to the Guide, it'll be corrected in a few
days.
- I'm not so sure about the correctness of the usage of
dcterms:format under <http://rdfs.org/ns/void-guide#sec_1_5_Technical_description_features
>. First, dcterms:format requires a resources rather than a literal.
DC is wildly inconsistent and self-contradictory in this regard. For
example, for dc:creator it says "the name of the creator should be
used" as the object, and then declares a range of dc:Agent, which
obviously is nonsense. Well, but that's not really an excuse for us,
so you are probably right that this is poor usage.
Then, this would mean that the void:TechnicalFeature *has* this
format, so it would be a document, not that it *is* that format.
You read too much into this. dc:format has no domain defined, and the
prose description just says "the format of the resource", which I
don't see as conflicting with our use. You cannot conclude that X is a
document just because it has a dc:format.
In summary, I agree that our examples in 1.5 are poorly chosen, and we
should use better ones. I think this is not very urgent, since the
section basically says: "Come up with your own way of identifying and
describing features. Here's an example how it could look like."
Consider it as encouragement to do better than we did ;-)
Do you think it's harmful to leave the example as is in the Guide,
until we do a future voiD 2.0?
How about:
:DBpedia void:feature <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF/XML> .
That's probably a good idea, but we don't want to specify a fixed list
of technical feature URIs for this version of voiD. Rather we want to
see what people actually use, and then decide how to move ahead. But
FWIW I personally fully support this use of DBpedia URIs.
- My questions on <http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/issues/detail?id=19&can=1
> still stand. ;-)
I answered in the issue tracker. Summary: Distinction between
wrappers, caching and non-caching datasets and so on are concerned
with technical implementation details, and they should be described
via void:feature (if at all) rather than via subclassing void:Dataset.
As you know, we do not provide instances to be used with void:feature
at the moment, but will consider proposals.
- I hope there will be some alignment with SIOC in the future (see
also <http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev/browse_thread/thread/da8a2d4c1f4adf38/07370433943f906d?show_docid=07370433943f906d
>).
We are in principle open towards further alignment with SIOC, but this
requires clarifications from the SIOC ontology authors first, as
indicated in my mail that you linked to above. I didn't get any
answers to it, so the issue is stalled. You should lobby the SIOC
folks to help me clarify these issues, if you want to help moving this
ahead.
Best,
Richard
What I'm especially after is using sioc:has_container instead of
dcterms:isPartOf to go from the page of an item in the dataset to
the description of the dataset (which would be a sioc:Container as
well).
I think I will just do this for now (for the project I'm working on)
since I'm providing discovery via sitemap.xml anyway.
Cheers,
Simon
