proposed change to best-practices recipes for publihsing rdf vocabs

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

proposed change to best-practices recipes for publihsing rdf vocabs

Leo Sauermann-2

Hi Alistair,

Harry Halpin has reviewed cool-uris-for the semantic web and has
proposed to merge the BestPractices you edit together with cool-uris.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sweo-ig/2008Mar/0097.html

We will not change cool-uris now, but I inform you about his ideas:

It was Harry Halpin who said at the right time 28.03.2008 18:39 the
following words:

> 2) Overall the document is excellent explanation. It would be better
> also if it served as a bit of a primer, since after I've just been
> indoctrinated into giving URIs to things by using 303s, an eager
> developer might actually want to do this. Yet the example of how to
> modify an .htaccess file so 303 and conneg can be used is  in "Best
> Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies" [3].
>
> Yet the only reference of this *extremely useful* cut and paste sort of
> examples - precisely the kind needed by developers wanting to deploy
> 303s and conneg - is here  "The W3C's Semantic Web Best Practices and
> Deployment Working Group has published a document that describes how to
> implement the solutions presented here on the Apache Web server. The
> Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20060314/> [Recipes
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#ref-Recipes>] mostly discuss the
> publication of /RDF vocabularies/, but the ideas can also be applied to
> other kinds of small RDF datasets that are published from static files."
> So, why not just either merge the documents? Or keep the "Cool URI"
> document as an explanation, and keep technical examples in the Best
> Practice Recipe Doc?
>
> To make this document useful as a primer, you either you need to provide
> working code (like .htaccess files) for your examples inline in the
> document or *clearly* tell the readers this sort of thing is in the
> "Best Practices" document.
>
> To make your life easier, I'd just move all the rather technical details
> in Sec 4.7 to the "Best Practice Recipes" in order to keep readers in
> line. And say, "If you're going to need help implementing content
> negotation and 303 redirection, please see the working examples for
> modifying your server in Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF
> Vocabularies <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20060314/>."

best
Leo

--
____________________________________________________
DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 

Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer
Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
Germany                 Mail:  [hidden email]

Geschaeftsfuehrung:
Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
____________________________________________________


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: proposed change to best-practices recipes for publihsing rdf vocabs

Harry Halpin


Leo Sauermann wrote:
> Hi Alistair,
>
> Harry Halpin has reviewed cool-uris-for the semantic web and has
> proposed to merge the BestPractices you edit together with cool-uris.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sweo-ig/2008Mar/0097.html
Well, to be precise it seems that "Cool URIs" as stands currently,
except with the slight divergence is Sec 4.7, is a good explanatory
document, but it's "conceptual" and very high level. It would be great
if it could aligned with Best Practices, because after reading it the
average hacker on the street may get excited and actually want to deploy
303 redirection, which is a bit of a black art to most people. That
black art is *not* explained in "Cool URIs" but explained in Best
Recipes. So clearly, so sort of large pointer to "If you actually want
to implement any of this, please see the Best Practices Document" needs
to be in Cool URIs, and some sort of note saying "If you want to know
why to give real world things separate URIs, please see the Cool URI
document" needs to be done.

       thanks,
             harry

> We will not change cool-uris now, but I inform you about his ideas:
>
> It was Harry Halpin who said at the right time 28.03.2008 18:39 the
> following words:
>> 2) Overall the document is excellent explanation. It would be better
>> also if it served as a bit of a primer, since after I've just been
>> indoctrinated into giving URIs to things by using 303s, an eager
>> developer might actually want to do this. Yet the example of how to
>> modify an .htaccess file so 303 and conneg can be used is  in "Best
>> Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies" [3].
>>
>> Yet the only reference of this *extremely useful* cut and paste sort of
>> examples - precisely the kind needed by developers wanting to deploy
>> 303s and conneg - is here  "The W3C's Semantic Web Best Practices and
>> Deployment Working Group has published a document that describes how to
>> implement the solutions presented here on the Apache Web server. The
>> Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20060314/> [Recipes
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#ref-Recipes>] mostly discuss the
>> publication of /RDF vocabularies/, but the ideas can also be applied to
>> other kinds of small RDF datasets that are published from static files."
>> So, why not just either merge the documents? Or keep the "Cool URI"
>> document as an explanation, and keep technical examples in the Best
>> Practice Recipe Doc?
>>
>> To make this document useful as a primer, you either you need to provide
>> working code (like .htaccess files) for your examples inline in the
>> document or *clearly* tell the readers this sort of thing is in the
>> "Best Practices" document.
>>
>> To make your life easier, I'd just move all the rather technical details
>> in Sec 4.7 to the "Best Practice Recipes" in order to keep readers in
>> line. And say, "If you're going to need help implementing content
>> negotation and 303 redirection, please see the working examples for
>> modifying your server in Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF
>> Vocabularies <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20060314/>."
>
> best
> Leo
>


--
                -harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: proposed change to best-practices recipes for publihsing rdf vocabs - will not change

Leo Sauermann-2
Hi Harry,

answering to you and SWEO, this special issue does not require Alistair or SWBP involvement.... but forwarded to them for documentation

I checked the document, there are many hints how to implement conneg already,
Due to the already-revirewed state of the document, I would not change it now based on the recommendation to add more links about conneg...
see below.

It was Harry Halpin who said at the right time 29.03.2008 20:30 the following words:
Leo Sauermann wrote:
  
Hi Alistair,

Harry Halpin has reviewed cool-uris-for the semantic web and has
proposed to merge the BestPractices you edit together with cool-uris.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sweo-ig/2008Mar/0097.html
    
Well, to be precise it seems that "Cool URIs" as stands currently,
except with the slight divergence is Sec 4.7, is a good explanatory
document, but it's "conceptual" and very high level. It would be great
if it could aligned with Best Practices, because after reading it the
average hacker on the street may get excited and actually want to deploy
303 redirection, which is a bit of a black art to most people. That
black art is *not* explained in "Cool URIs" but explained in Best
Recipes. So clearly, so sort of large pointer to "If you actually want
to implement any of this, please see the Best Practices Document" needs
to be in Cool URIs,

We already refer to the Best Practices document in the section 4.7:
"4.7. Implementing Content Negotiation
The W3C's Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group has published a document that describes how to implement the solutions presented here on the Apache Web server. The Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies [Recipes] mostly discuss the publication of RDF vocabularies, but the ideas can also be applied to other kinds of small RDF datasets that are published from static files. "

the second-last paragrpah of 4.7 gives a link to the actual Apache documentation about content negotiation:
"To determine the best variant for a particular client, Apache multiplies the client's q value for HTML with the configured qs value for HTML; and the same for RDF. The variant with the higher number wins. Apache's documentation has a section with a detailed description of its content negotiation algorithm [ApCN]. HTTP's Accept header is described in detail in section 14.1 of the HTTP specification [HTTP-SPEC]. "

I would say that is enough,
4.7 is about content negotiation,
it says to look in the recipes, it refers to apache.
google to the rescue if more information is needed :-)

I aknowledge that we could point more into the recipes, but the reader should be clever enough to spot the right part in the recipes.

best
Leo




-- 
____________________________________________________
DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 

Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
Germany                 Mail:  [hidden email]

Geschaeftsfuehrung:
Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
____________________________________________________