FWD - discussion of Published Subjects as SW vocabulary

[ewallace@cme.nist.gov]

SCM folk,

Here is a message from a thread about a SW Best Practice document on
RDF vocabularies that may interes some in this group.  It discusses issues 
with OASIS Published Subjects rules versus the recommendations in the 
document.  

-Evan


----- Begin Included Message -----

>From public-swbp-wg-request@frink.w3.org  Tue Jun  7 06:04:10 2005
From: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
To: "Thomas Baker" <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>,
        "SW Best Practices" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:02:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Subject: Agenda June 7 - Point 2 RE: [VM] Agenda for June 7 telecon
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCOEEPGCAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
Resent-From: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/2235
Sender: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
List-Id: <public-swbp-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1DfavB-0000Ud-NW@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:02:57 +0000



Some input for Point 2 of today's agenda

> 2. "Basic Steps for Managing an RDF Vocabulary" - next steps
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/principles/20050513

5. Publication

An RDF description of an RDF vocabulary should be published.  Potential users
should be clearly informed as to which is the 'authoritative' RDF description of
an RDF vocabulary.

Where the resources that are the members of an RDF vocabulary are denoted by
HTTP URIs, an HTTP GET request with the header field
'accept=application/rdf+xml' against that URI should return an RDF/XML
serialisation of an RDF graph that includes a description of the denoted
resource.

-----------------------------

I was wondering about what I've been testing lately at
http://www.mondeca.com/system/publishing
which tries to follow OASIS Published Subjects recommendation
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3050/pubsubj-pt1-1.02-cs.pdf
but which is clearly, in regard of the above prose, not a best practice.

For example http://www.mondeca.com/system/publishing#Descriptor does not get to an RDF
file, but to an anchor in an HTML informal documentation. (So far in French, sorry -
currently working on the English version.) This seemed to be conformant to OASIS Published
Subjects recommendation, Requirement 2:

"A Published Subject Identifier must resolve to an human-interpretable Published Subject
Indicator."

The formal OWL-RDF decription is a separate resource at
http://www.mondeca.com/system/publishing.rdf
According to Recommendation 2 in the same document
"A Published Subject Indicator may provide machine-processable metadata about itself."

But I guess the RDF schema should be included in the html page also, right?

Bernard

**********************************************************************************

Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Knowledge Engineering
bernard.vatant@mondeca.com

"Making Sense of Content" :  http://www.mondeca.com
"Everything is a Subject" :  http://universimmedia.blogspot.com

**********************************************************************************










----- End Included Message -----