[foaf-dev] beyond foaf:mbox_sha1sum

[Mischa Tuffield]

Hello Norman, 

Thanks for the info, comments inline. 

On 22 Dec 2009, at 12:55, Norman Gray wrote:

> 
> Mischa, hello.
> 
> On 2009 Dec 22, at 12:00, Mischa Tuffield wrote:
> 
>> Comments, feedback, suggestions welcomed, [on the FOAF validator at http://foaf.qdos.com/validator/]
> 
> Delighted!
> 
> 
> 
>  * If I just put in my URI (http://nxg.me.uk/norman/ in this case), it objects that
> 
> Warning. The document URL is not of type FOAF Document. The FOAF URL should be of rdf:type foaf:PersonalProfileDocument or foaf:Documentso that the URL can be identified as a FOAF document
> 
> This is true, but slightly tangential, given that the validator has by this stage gone through the 303-dance, so knows that the URL it's been given is not an information resource.  The validator could check that the URL it's been given is (as it in this case must be) a foaf:Person and _not_ a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument.
> 
>  * But the form does say to put in a FOAF document, so if I put in http://nxg.me.uk/norman/ttl (which is served as application/x-turtle), then the validator seems to stall, returning:
> 
> Tests A - Raptor RDF Parser validation
> 
> rapper: Parsing URI http://nxg.me.uk/norman/ttl with parser guess
> rapper: Serializing with serializer ntriples
> rapper: Guessed parser name 'guess'
> rapper: Parsing returned 88 triples
> 
> ...and ending the HTTP response with a lone </p>.

Yes, I understand that people don't read instructions on forms, but I was rather explicit about the validator requiring an RDF/XML document URI, and not your foaf:Person URI. 

But there is definitely room for improvement, as it stands, the validator only really likes consuming RDF/XML. I will try to find time to make the necessary fixes to that it starts reading more of the conventional rdf serialisations. It shouldn't be too much work...

> 
>  * If I finally go back and try http://nxg.me.uk/norman/rdf, then I get a number of warnings including
> 
> Warning. The use of domain URI without a trailing slash, the convention as per http examples states that :http://www.google.com is not sociable and should have a trailing slash
> 
> I've never heard of this convention, or of the idea that a URI is or is not 'sociable' because of the presence or absence of the redundant and not-required trailing slash.  Can you elaborate?  The link in the warning message is to <http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/4_Ex_HTTP.html>, which only lists a number of example URIs (that's a _very_ old page, by the way).

Ah, it seems like Steve got there before me, from my point of view, most domain names without a trailing slash tend to redirect users to the canonical URI with a trailing slash. This was merely an attempt to help clean up URIs to make the processing of FOAF documents easier. Would be nice to see an example URI of a domain with no trailing slash which doesn't redirect a user when the document is requested, do you have any?

> 
> 
> But thanks for the validator, and all the things that it approves of.  Validators: I love 'em!

Yay and a big 'your welcome'. We do need more validators, mmm may build a GoodRelations one soon ...

Regards, 

Mischa


> 
> All the best,
> 
> Norman
> 
> 
> -- 
> Norman Gray  :  http://nxg.me.uk
> 
> 

___________________________________
Mischa Tuffield
Email: mischa.tuffield at garlik.com
Homepage - http://mmt.me.uk/
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-dev/attachments/20091222/bff0fef3/attachment.htm