Frederic V. Hessman
Hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE
Mon Jan 21 05:27:36 PST 2008
While you have been digesting the latest proposal, I've been perusing
various things and suggest we address the following as well:
- suggest keeping version info in the name of the vocabulary (rather
than in the pathname, which might change without the vocabulary
actually changing) - eg. "http://myvocab.org/myvocab-v1.1#mytoken"
rather than "http://myvocab.org/v1.1/myvocab/#mytoken".
- suggest using either a "hash namespace" (e.g. "http://myvocab.org/
myvocab-v1.1#mytoken"), a "slash namespace" (e.g. "http://
yourvocab.net/yourvocab-v1.1/mytoken") or a 303-redirect service; all
three proposals are out there and have their points. I believe the
"hash" variety is simpler to understand and configure (for small
vocabularies, and we all agree we want many small vocabularies rather
than a few gigantic ones). If the congnicenti think that all the GET
requests for distinguishing between contents are far enough along,
then the "slash" variety may make it easier to query individual
entries (e.g. HTML docs rather than RDF), something which appears to
be harder using "hash". The point is to make a single mechanism
standard - at least at first, when there are enough other things to
worry about. When the semantic web finally chooses a standard, we
can still adopt it then (if we haven't already).
- Looked at a few parsers (e.g. HP's Jena for Java) but still can't
judge whether there are enough flexible parsers out there to be able
to say it doesn't matter whether a publisher uses XML, N3 or Turtle
(I think we can agree we're not going to accept plain ascii, given
that only a trivial vocabulary - list of words - is interpretable and
it is trivial to put plain ascii content into any of the official
formats). We need to make some statement about format, even if the
statement is that any of the most common formats is OK. If we need
to choose just one, I still say XML is best, since it doesn't need
any additional parser at all to get started.
- given that SKOS mappings appear to be a moving target, it looks
like there's no point in mentioning anything about what we're
actually going to DO with the vocabularies. I was hoping we could at
least support a few RDF containers like rdf:Bag, but it appears we're
going to depend upon simple things like
<param name="event-is-not" rdf:resource="voe:GRB">
(for a VOEvent-ish artificial example) for a while.
More information about the semantics