ISSUE-281: prov-o namspaces are not dereferencable
TLebo
prov-o namspaces are not dereferencable
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Ontology
- Raised by:
- Timothy Lebo
- Opened on:
- 2012-03-04
- Description:
- The class and property URIs in prov-o need to resolve to an RDF definition when HTTP requested.
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-281 (TLebo): prov-o namspaces are not dereferencable [Ontology] (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2012-05-16)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-281 (TLebo): prov-o namspaces are not dereferencable [Ontology] (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-05-16)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-281 (TLebo): prov-o namspaces are not dereferencable [Ontology] (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2012-05-15)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-281 (TLebo): prov-o namspaces are not dereferencable [Ontology] (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2012-05-14)
- Re: Namespace for prov specs (from mccusj@rpi.edu on 2012-03-22)
- Re: Namespace for prov specs (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-03-22)
- Re: Namespace for prov specs (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2012-03-22)
- Re: Namespace for prov specs (from soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk on 2012-03-21)
- Namespace for prov specs (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2012-03-19)
- PROV-ISSUE-281 (TLebo): prov-o namspaces are not dereferencable [Ontology] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-03-04)
Related notes:
Note from Ivan:
Chiming in from the outside... yes, the files should/could be created in /ns, and it is worth doing as soon as possible. Either I or Sandro can put those up to the web site. It should certainly not wait until Rec.
You guys should give some thoughts on the file organization. If you use the 'slash' approach, ie, /ns/prov-o/, that means that each term, like /ns/prov-o/property should be dereferencable on its own right and that means a separate file(s) for each of those terms. If you use the 'slash'[hash] approach, ie, /ns/prov-o#property, then one file works. In both cases, I think it is worth having the owl content stored in rdf/xml and in turtle at the minimum; personally, I believe having an HTML file with RDFa in it would be good, it would provide a human readable version of the terms.
An example:
http://www.w3.org/rdfa
this URI would return an HTML+RDFa, .rdf, or .ttl file, depending on content negotiation:
http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa.html
http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa.rdf
http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa.ttl
I realize the rdfa vocabulary is smaller than the prov one, of course.
In case you go along the .html +RDFa approach, the rdf and ttl versions can be generated automatically.
I hope this helps
Cheers
Ivan
Display change log