On Oct 4, 2008, at 9:56 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Pat Hayes < phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 4, 2008, at 2:46 AM, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Cool thanks
it renders well in firefox without extension
but I am not sure understand how one uri can be viewed both as rdf
source and html
It is resolved by 'content negotiation', a similar technique used for
example to decide which language version you get of a multi-language-
edition newspaper. To regard these editions as a single resource is
considered good Web practice according to the W3C Architectural
guidelines, but the extension of this to the HTML/RDF distinction is
currently more controversial. So this might be good practice,
depending on how the current debates about RDF and content negotiation
finally settle out. In the meantime one should probably treat it as
provisionally good practice, or maybe experimental good practice.
Ahem. There is not a whiff of content negotiation, which I don't like
Oh, sorry. I spoke too soon. because it makes it confusing to figure out what resource the URI
names.
?? Why does content negotiation make this difficult? The whole idea of content negotiation is to decide upon alternative representations of a single resource. If you use 200 codes with content negotiation, there is a single resource involved, denoted by the URI, which can have alternative representations (eg as RDF or HTML). I see nothing confusing about that. True, if you wish to refer to one of these documents in particular, you ought to use a different URI, but again, that seems unproblematic. I do not consider using content negotiation good practice, even
provisionally.
Well, as you know, others differ. I said it was still being debated.
According to http-range-14, a 303 redirect response tells you absolutely nothing about what the URI denotes. This is in contrast to a 200-range response, which does tell you something: that the URI denotes something you can access over the network, to wit, the very "information resource" that emitted the representation that accompanies the response code. This is the 'normal' case which underlies almost every successful HTTP Web transaction.
I guess I don't see why you need to invoke http-range-14 at all, in order to map between RDF and HTML. They are both 'information resources', after all. Note: the relation between what you ask for and what you are given is
currently underspecified. Here one might consider it "provisional good
practice" that one serves RDF/XML that contains statements about the
resource.
Indeed. Or, more generally, serves information about the resource in whatever form might be most useful to the requestor, perhaps in many forms, to be resolved by cont... oh, sorry, I forgot. A get on that URI retrieves OWL statements about the resource. The OWL is serialized as RDF/XML. RDF/XML is XML, and so can have a stylesheet directive that says how it can be transformed to be displayed in a browser. This is similar in spirit to the model/view distinction in engineering user interfaces. The model is the RDF, the view is generated from the model. The stylesheet directive looks like this: <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href=""http://ashby.csail.mit.edu/cgi-bin/obiterm.xsl?ref=OBI_0000225">http://ashby.csail.mit.edu/cgi-bin/obiterm.xsl?ref=OBI_0000225"?> The browser then gets http://ashby.csail.mit.edu/cgi-bin/obiterm.xsl?ref=OBI_0000225 in order to get that transform, then applies it to the RDF/XML to generate HTML that it can display.
OK, I see how you do it. Still, seems to me that content negotiation would be simpler and more in conformance with TAG recommendations than using stylesheets, which are restricted to XML. For those that might think that this looks like a lot of traffic to generate the page, I'll remind that there are a variety of ways that this same information can be retrieved much more efficiently, for example the whole OBI OWL file ( http://purl.obofoundry.org/obo/obi.owl), or as a query against the Neurocommons triple store at http://sparql.neurocommons.org/ . For the single dereference of a citable name, we consider it more important that we try as best possible to not confuse what the URI denotes
Can you really make sense of your explanation, above, in terms of URI denotations?
Pat
, and to have systems in place that reduce as much as possible the chance that there be incentive to give another name (URI) for the same entity. -Alan
Pat
or do we have more than one uri for the same resource? if so, is that
legal/good practice?
thanks
PDM
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Alan Ruttenberg
<alanruttenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Whoops, typo: That should be: http://purl.obofoundry.org/obo/OBI_0000225
Thanks for noticing!
Note that if you view source, you will see RDF rather than HTML. The
HTML is browser only, generated by a stylesheet instruction.
-Alan
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 3:19 AM, <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
- http://purl.obofoundry.org/obo/OBO_0000225 - an example of what
we
think should be a typical response for an ontology term
Alan, when click on that url with firefox i get redirected to
http://www.berkeleybop.org/ontologies/OBO_0000225
and see 'object not found'
is this the response to be expecting, or suggesting should be
expected?
--PDM
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxShared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
|