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 <[email protected]>:
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
--
Phil Archer
http://philarcher.org/
+44 (0)1473 434770
i-sieve Technologies | W3C
Sentiment Analysis Beyond Impressions | Open Media Web
http://i-sieve.com | http://www.w3.org
