This page is used by Leo Sauermann as editor of the to track changes of the SWEO IG note "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web". The co-authors Richard Cyganiak and Danny Ayers also use it for comments.
Handling feedback
Feedback on version 20080321
Feedback on version 20071217
Issues List
Issue #1 Thing URI, Generic Document URI, RDF+HTML Document URIs
Issue #2 "Non-Information Resource"
Issue #3: Graphic error?
Issue #4: change graphics
Issue #5: TAG has to check
Issue #6: Give implementation examples
Feedback before 17.12.2007 (handled)
Notes
Things done
Handling of Danny Ayers' English-speaker review
Richard's issues list
Leo is reading all the feedback and marking the things to do:
Done: DONE, Firstname Secondname on 20.11.2007
# | Subject | Sender | Date | feedback by us | status | issues left |
19 | #conneg | Sergio Fernandez | 10.6.2008 | ok | done |
# | Subject | Sender | Date | feedback by us | status | issues left |
12 | Re: Proposed rewrite for section 3.1 | Henry S Thompson | 21.3.2008 | feedback | done | |
13 | Re: Proposed rewrite for section 3.1 | Jonathan Rees | 21.3.2008 | feedback | done | |
14 | Re: Proposed rewrite for section 3.1 | Stuart Williams | 25.3.2008 | feedback | done | |
15 | Re: Proposed rewrite for section 3.1 | Xiaoshu Wang | 26.3.2008 | feedback | done | |
16 | Cool URI doc | Susie Stephens | 28.3.2008 | feedback | done | |
17 | Review of Cool URIs for the Semantic Web | Harry Halpin | 28.3.2008 | feedback | done | |
18 | Re: proposed change to best-practices recipes for publihsing rdf vocabs | Harry Halpin | 29.03.2008 20:30 | feedback | done | |
The feedback and answers indicating changes to the document by SWEO is gathered in the column "feedback by us" and then sent via e-mail back to the reported once the next version is ready. When all issues are closed, we have a new draft of the document.
Our working draft is HERE:
https://gnowsis.opendfki.de/repos/gnowsis/papers/2006_11_concepturi/html/cooluris_sweo_note.html
Solved in compromise: both solutions are described now.
Timbl wants to have a solution with a URI for the generic document, see
http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2008-02-14.html#T21-11-15
Here a copy from feedback9#i1:
> ** Major technical question about the implementation of 303. I know
> that dbpedia does it the way described, but there are a lot of good
> reasons to do it by a 303 to a generic URI for the document, which
> then itself does a conneg to RDF and HTML.
>
> - It is no more round trips than the dbpedia way
> - It gives the client a URI to bookmark which is generic. This is
> important:
> - It allows the user with an RDF-capable client to bookmark the
> document, and mail it to another user (or another device) which then
> dereferences it and gets the HTML view. This use of generic resources
> is important.
> - It provides the server with the ability to add representation in new
> languages in the future.
> - It is standard conneg and so probably more supported on servers
>
> Just because client started with the URI of a thing, it doesn't mean
> that the document involved is not a first class document on the WWW.
> Best practices for this document apply. One of these is the use of
> Generic Resources. (See for example http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic.html
> and the new ontology )
You are right in your argumentation.
The problem is tough, that we still will have URIs for the various representations,
such as RDF/HTML/EN/DE, etc. In the "Content-Location" header, the http
server will return those URIs anyway.
I assume the client should bookmark the Thing-Uri, not the document
uri, or?
We will discuss this in the 20th March TAG telco?!
I hesitate though, to change the whole document now.
We have no time left.
To make everyone happy, I humbly suggest to
add your conneg-document-uri-for bookmarking solution
as another solution, after the existing ones.
Also explaining the certain problem that people
SHOULD send/bookmark/use/reference-in-triples
the thing-URI but if this is not feasible in browser
bookmarks because of redirects, it would be good to use
the generic-document-uri.
We don't know yet what is better for the semantic web, or?
lets have the reader be able to understand both sides and decide himself?
Pending: we wrote a mail to Stuart & TAG & SWEO & timbl about it
Notes from Telco:
ren 4.2: 303 "redirects to documents with different information
Tim: q and qs are important. when we put tabulator into firefox, we had a problem. when you generate the html from RDF its lossy. Deployment group document had a piece of apache code that had too simplistic assumption. For each file you get a quality by multiplying server side quality with client side quality.
q = qs * qc
<jar> (q / qs relates to CN algorithm - quality)
if RDF is scraped from html then its quality is less than the quality of the HTML.
RDF 0.3 HTML 1.0
if HTML is gemerated from RDF then
RDF 1.0 and HTML 0.3
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/content-negotiation.html
say that if one is derived from another, then prefer the original version. Point to apache documentation. Do this inside the conneg section.
"In the case in which for example an HTML file has been generated from the RDF file, then the HTML has lost some information, so the RDF should be deleivered for clients whcih accept boethr RDF and HTML with similar q levels (see HTTP sec).
See for example the Apache content negotiation [ref]."
Diagram: rdf wins on one side, html wins on the other side. refer to the qs section for explanation.
TODO: reference this: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html in section generic resources.
TITLE: URIs for things not on the web
TITLE: URIs for the Semantic Web
henry t: Above we assumed that there is a distinction between web documents and everything else
There are some Things which are not web documents. replaces: Above we assumed that there is a distinction between web documents(information resources)and things (real-world, non-document objects)
delete 3.1, keep this sentence: Note that URIs of people amd the documents abou them sould not be confused: For example the person Alice is described on her in an information resource, Alice's homepage. Bob may not like the look of the homepage, but fancy the person Alice.
It shouldn't say "real world object" replace it with "...".
ht: Can I ask the authors, do you understand why we're opposed to setting up an opposition between web documents and real world objects?
Beginning:
Above we assumed that there is a distinction between web documents and everything else
Distinguishing between things and the web documents about them.
<timbl_> We have discussed ways of giving URIs to all kinds of things,
<timbl_> so that the client can find out the URIs of documents between them.
<timbl_> Note that URIs of things, say people, amd the documents abou them should not be confused: For example the person Alice is described on her homepage. Bob may not like the look of the homepage, but still like the person Alice.
<timbl_> --------------
DONE
In feedback#1, Danny Ayers wrote:
I noticed "non-information resource" used in the draft, just
rediscovered the ref. where timbl suggests it's unnecessary & maybe
misleading -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Nov/0041
In feedback#3, Andy Powell wrote:
This section appears to introduce 'Web document' as a symonym for
'information resource'? I prefer this in some ways. However, I presume
that the use of 'Web document' was rejected by previous W3C WG
discussion? Why re-introduce it here?
In feedback#3, Andy Powell wrote:
It seems to me that introducing 'web documents' and 'real-world,
non-document objects' as new terminology is ultimately more confusing
than simply using 'information resources' and 'non-information
resources'.
At the beginning of his mail, Andy preferred "web document", .... so....
In feedback#9, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
** In general, remove the term "non-information resource" from the
entire document. Replace it with "thing". It is wrong. It is used
misleadingly to mean "A thing, which is not necessarily an information
resource".
** It would I think in document like this be best to stick with "web
document" instead of "information resource" too, but that is just for
readability. It is already done in places.
** Delete "We call all these real-world objects or (according to WWW-
Arch) non-information resources." (It is a bad term, as explained
above, and the AWWW does not use it at all).
Leo says:
The term "web document" is not common in W3Cs standardization language. Nevertheless it is understandable by the target audience, web developers. Tim Berners lee indicated positive feedback (link needed) towards the term "web document", both the SWD and TAG are critisising "web document" and required better explanations or dropping the term. As this is W3C note, we should think about dropping the term "web document".
Richard Cyganiak, Thu, 29 Nov 2007:
I'm strongly opposed to changing this terminology. "Non-information resource" is possibly the most unfortunate term ever used in discussions of web architecture, and we should quickly forget that it ever existed. ... Information resource" is an official engineering term, but inappropriate for an introductory document. The terms we currently use, "thing"/"other resource" and "web document" are appropriate, sufficiently well-explained and correct. The terminology has support from key TAG members, including Tim Berners Lee. I don't think that anything needs to be changed with regard to these terms.
Decision (accepted by Leo and Danny):
we use "Web document" and as opposite terms "thing" and "real-world object"
what did Christoph mean here?
He explained later that <link> should be used throughout the example.
This minor issue is closed.
DONE
The TAG suggest to rephrase the first sentence in 3 "Uris for real-world objects" with:
"With the advent of semantic web technologies, the web is extended so that (http:?) URIs can
identify not just web documents but also "...
Suggestion: We think the current text is fine.
There is another thing in 3.1 where the TAG has to check our solution.
This issue will not be addressed due to time constraints of the editors and the ending of the SWEO Interest Group.
@@ Reviewers asked for example rules of thumb how to distinguish between document identifiers and concept identifiers (information and non-information resources). Write some wget examples that do that? Leo Sauermann agrees that we did not cover the crucial point yet: what is the definitive test to verify that a URI identifies a non-information resource? Range-14 says: "If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a 303 (See Other) response, then the resource identified by that URI could be any resource;" Or is this such a problem at all? At the end the RDF:type indicates the nature of a resource. If we find a script example, I would put that into the 4.6. implementation section.
Spelling decisions:
@@(Scope) Say that this document explains the TAG decision httpRange-14 resolution [httpRange] and does not recommend new solutions. @@
From the Introduction: @@ check if this explains the semantic web for the intended audience or if more is needed@@
From 2.1: @@DannyAyers: ...and treat them as independent resources? @@Leo: they may be several representions of the same resource, the term "independent" may be misleading.
@@ Danny Ayers: Status will probably need editing for W3C-conformance
@@ Leo (13.3.2008) until now, nobody really complained, its ok.... if not, we get warned anyway.
@@ Danny Ayers: "follow-your-nose" might be a useful phrase to include somewhere
@@ Danny Ayers: style - Abstract and much of the content uses 1st person plural "we..." - is that ok? Leo Sauermann: Its typical for scientists (the authors) to use this wording, and acceptable outside scientific publications.
@@ pubrules were checked on 12.12.2007 by Leo Sauermann, repeated checking is good once the document is on the /TR location.
@@Danny Ayers: I believe it came in a recent thread on semantic-web@w3.org that "non-information resource" wasn't defined in WebArch, though I haven't checked. If so, should be reworded. My suggestion for rewording is to delete that last sentence
@@ Leo Sauermann: there is no other term offered. Suggestion: remove "(according to WWW.Arch)" in 3
@@ Danny Ayers: It's long been possible to identify things, and RDF etc aren't strictly necessary
@@ LeoSauermann: hesitate to change the document based on this general comment.
Important: From the SWD 23.10.2007: ReviewCoolURIs_SWD.htm - [public] all done, rejected, or moved to issues section in the draft
Important: From the TAG 19.9.2007: Feedback_2007_09_19_TAG.html [public] all done, rejected, or moved to issues section in the draft
Feedback that will not be taken into account (for now)
More todos can be found in the changelog of the document.
Leo got the review from Danny on 10.12.2007 and replaced the existing document with Danny's. Leo did undo a few changes, though:
Leo: its ok to continue using "web documents", the document addresses normal developers off the streets. I would be in favor of doing these things:
Some stuff that Richard would like to update if there is enough time