OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office] Question for the TC about resolving the OpenDocument v1.2 namespace URIs

hello Robin,

sorry for taking so long to reply.

On 14/04/14 16:56, Robin Cover wrote:
> OpenDocument TC Members,
> On the matter of DNS+HTTP resolution of the two URI references
> (identifying namespace names) as mentioned earlier [1], I have fixed the
> OASIS Web server configuration so that the URIs now resolve.  However,

thanks for your work on this!

> my investigation into recommended server configurations for
> "semantic-web" style NS URIs [often the "hash" type] also prompts an
> additional question for the TC members:
> Do you have a preference as to whether the two URI references resolve to
> A or B ?
> A) directly to the formal OWL ontology files (.owl)
> B) indirectly, via the existing XML namespace documents
> Documentation available to me on this topic reflects varying
> professional opinion, as does past/current practice with respect to
> resolution that best serves the interests of the users, whether human
> agents or machines  [2].
> If you think OpenDocument v1.2 implementations involve semantic web
> applications that directly make use of the two namespace URIs -- e.g.,
> where a machine defeferences the URI so as to fetch and process the OWL
> (RFD/XML) source file --  then it may be preferable to implement "A" above
> If you think the XML namespace name URIs are typically (or exclusively)
> used by human agents, e.g., readers who view the prose OpenDocument
> specifications and click on the two corresponding hyperlinks from the
> spec cover page, then it may be preferable to implement "B", as is
> currently done
> As far as I know, I can implement "A" or "B" using server directives
> currently under our control, but I need to know which you prefer.

all the documents that i've read from the W3C indicate that it must be
possible to deliver the OWL ontology files if the client explicitly
requests it via the "Accept: application/rdf+xml" header, i.e., this is
a hard requirement... and if content negotiation is not currently
possible on the OASIS server, then that means the URI should directly
resolve to the OWL ontology.


> d) http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results#

  ^ interestingly, although this one is related to RDF it is actually
not defined by a RDF schema or ontology but by XML Schema.

Michael Stahl | Software Engineer
Platform Engineering - Desktop Team
Red Hat

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at redhat.com

Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Sitz: Grasbrunn,
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht München, HRB 153243
Geschäftsführer: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Paul Hickey,
Charles Peters

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]