[foaf-protocols] what if

[Michael Hausenblas]

> A very bad vocabulary by the way. It is modelling http headers in RDF at the
> syntactic level. If you want an ontology that models the metdata in the
> headers semantically look at the ontology developed by the tabulator.

Correct. That's why we're working on HTTP semantics in the AWWSW Task Force
[1], see for example [2].


Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://esw.w3.org/AwwswHome
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/http-semantics-report.html

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:41:43 +0200
> To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen at openlinksw.com>
> Cc: "foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org"
> <foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] what if
> 
> 
> On 19 Jul 2010, at 02:43, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> another very valid point - well said Bruno
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes, but do note, there is a vocabulary for HTTP [1]. All worth
>> revisiting at the right time :-)
>> 
>> Links:
>> 
>> 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF10/
> 
> A very bad vocabulary by the way. It is modelling http headers in RDF at the
> syntactic level. If you want an ontology that models the metdata in the
> headers semantically look at the ontology developed by the tabulator.
> 
> Henry
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols