- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:42:43 +0100
- To: SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Andreas Harth <andreas.harth@deri.org>, David Booth <dbooth@hp.com>
The Vocabulary Management Task Force would like to propose "Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies" [1] for publication as a Working Draft. In recent VM telecons [2], we have been discussing the reviews provided by David Booth and Andreas Harth. We would like to ask David and Andreas now to look at our notes (below) and let us know if they agree with our request to publish a Working Draft. We just discussed this request on the Feb 6 SWBPD telecon and agreed on the following timetable: -- David Booth would like to propose some words on how to select which type of URI to use. We have asked him to provide this before the VM telecon of Feb 14. -- Next VM telecons are on Feb 7 and Feb 14 [3]. -- Having heard back from David and Andreas and received text from David, by Feb 17 we post a proposal to the list to publish as a Working Draft. -- In the Feb 20 telecon, SWBPD takes a decision. [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/ [2] Recent telecons 2006-01-24: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0125.html 2006-01-31: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0180.html [3] Next telecons (weekly) 2005-02-07 Tue 1500 UTC http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060207 2005-02-14 Tue 1500 UTC http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060214 ---- Responses to reviews -- David Booth review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0124.html -- Global suggestions G1. To discuss trade-offs between hash and slash URIs Response: Ralph has addressed this with added text in the introduction. David has not yet indicated whether he is satisfied. G2. To avoid purl.org recipes, which violate TAG resolution with 302 redirect code. Problem with purl.org: It is not enough to change all 302s to 303s because 302 is appropriate for most URIs. So the purl.org maintainers would have to implement a feature for users to specify that some resource is a non-information resource. This would require changes to the database. Are there any options to do a double redirection? I.e. if purl returns a 302 redirect, then my own server does a 303. On Jan 17, decided to clarify with TAG whether inferences are supposed to be made already on the initial response code. ACTION (DONE Jan 17): Alistair drafted the question (i.e., that only the initial response code matters) for discussion in BPD, then to send to TAG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0076.html This draft note to TAG -- suggests they coin a URI for class "resource" (tag:informationResource) so that things like rdfs:Class, owl:Class, and rdf:Property could be declared disjoint with it. -- requests clarification on what implication one can draw when 303 is returned as opposed to 200 ("X is a tag:infoResource"). (Note: In follow-up, David Booth suggested a draft "HTTP URI-Identity-Algorithm", out of scope for the VM TF per se: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0116.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0165.html) ACTION - DONE: Alistair put the purl.org material into an Appendix. -- Specific recipes Recipe 3. Interpretation of a fragment identifier in the presence of 303 redirects is unclear, so recipe should note that browser may or may not apply fragment identifier to secondary URI. -- Editorial suggestions E1. Shorter URIs in the examples would be better. Alistair would rather leave the longer URIs for now because a UK server is configured to support them, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0034.html. Ralph suggests using w3c URIs in the final version (with shorter URIs for the examples). E2. At the beginning of each recipe, say what the URIs would return. Alistair proposes to illustrate this graphically, so added images http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0034.html. David Booth actually intended simply to spell out which URIs are redirected to. Ralph wonders whether the images really add any new information. On Jan 18, Alistair reorganized recipes 1 and 2, adding short description of outcomes as per Booth suggestion. Added examples with expected outcomes for purpose of testing. Wants to organize the rest like this when IE6 bug resolved. -- Andreas Harth review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0004.html -- The document has too many choices - suggests cutting down to 3 or 4 covering 80% of the cases. -- Suggests content negotiation instead of mod_rewrite modules. Response at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0016.html -- Suggests mod_alias instead of mod_rewrite. -- Maybe put purl.org examples into an appendix. -- Dr. Thomas Baker baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de SUB - Goettingen State +49-551-39-3883 and University Library +49-30-8109-9027 Papendiek 14, 37073 G�ttingen
Received on Monday, 6 February 2006 19:39:55 UTC