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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:22:16 +0100 >> To: Michael Hausenblas <[email protected]> >> Cc: Niklas Lindström <[email protected]>, Kingsley Idehen >> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Danny Ayers >> <[email protected]>, Linked Data community <[email protected]> >> 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 <[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 > >
