Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Dec 03 19:28
    csarven synchronize #352
  • Dec 03 19:27

    csarven on authoritative-contained-resource-data

    Add dcterms-modified-correspond… (compare)

  • Dec 03 18:02
    csarven synchronize #352
  • Dec 03 18:02

    csarven on authoritative-contained-resource-data

    Remove contained-resource-state… (compare)

  • Dec 03 17:51
    csarven synchronize #352
  • Dec 03 17:51

    csarven on authoritative-contained-resource-data

    Remove advisement on omitting d… Add determining server-containe… (compare)

  • Dec 03 16:40
    csarven synchronize #352
  • Dec 03 16:40

    csarven on authoritative-contained-resource-data

    Mention date as part of dcterms… (compare)

  • Dec 03 16:40
    csarven synchronize #352
  • Dec 03 16:40

    csarven on authoritative-contained-resource-data

    Update authoritative-resource-d… (compare)

  • Dec 03 12:11
    kjetilk commented #35
  • Dec 03 11:56
    pietercolpaert commented #35
  • Dec 02 14:00
    kjetilk commented #329
  • Dec 02 13:52
    RubenVerborgh edited #21
  • Dec 02 13:51
    RubenVerborgh unassigned #21
  • Dec 02 13:51
    RubenVerborgh commented #21
  • Dec 02 13:50
    RubenVerborgh edited #21
  • Dec 02 13:47
    RubenVerborgh edited #21
  • Dec 02 11:41
    Potherca commented #63
  • Dec 01 01:17
    jeff-zucker commented #244
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@gatemezing Did we already talk about LOV having an inbox to receive notifications about new vocabs or updates to existing ones. You can have a shape for the notification so that can work as a way to register vocabs in LOV
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter

@csarven

Well, it is not possible for a resource to have both RDF and non-RDF representations

if you show me a specification that states this, i will accept that

unless it's LDP which has no standing in my world
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Hmm, yea, I don't know if LDP will do that either.
Tom Gallivan
@sideshowtom
@csarven you said there "Feel free to raise spec questions in https://gitter.im/solid/specification or on GitHub with the same path. There is also https://github.com/solid/vocab that's intended as the place to request/register etc terms." so i asked here. So basically, any questions about it should go to issues on https://github.com/solid/vocab?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@sideshowtom Right. Please see the subsequent messages.
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
@csarven I don't see anything in https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ that prevents a resource having both RDF and non-RDF representations
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@namedgraph_twitter I think URI Persistence would cover that.
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
where is that specified?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@sideshowtom Yes, solid-terms is still in use. If it wasn't updated since 2018 that doesn't mean it is outdated either. Why would it be? Is there something missing that should be in there? We generally experiment with implementations first, raise issues in solid/vocab .. spec it in parallel, and then they'll get added to the vocab.
Tom Gallivan
@sideshowtom
ok
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@namedgraph_twitter What's the resource about? What information is it supposed to convey?
Information about a non-RDF resource (like an image) and an RDF resource (like a comment/annotation) are different things.
Hypothetically content-negotiation is possible but that's neither common or particularly sensible.
So, if there is a use case that would somehow require a resource to be in arbitrary representations, we can look into that.
Re AWWW, once you associate some information to a URI, you stick to it - most of the time. Updating that URI's representation eg. RDF to non-RDF (or vice-versa) is a change that should not happen.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
I don't think LDP encourages that. If anything, it leans on not being possible. It talks about the same AWWW principles, and also its interaction models are intended to be sticky ie. server honours client's request.
Solid spec has the same stance.
(I'm not saying this as authority.. just based on discussions/information on the table)
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
@csarven lets say we're talking about an image, identified by a URI
if you request PNG or JPEG, you get a binary representation of the image
you can just as well request and get a different representation, including RDF

https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#dereference-details

If the URI owner has provided more than one representation (in different formats such as HTML, PNG, or RDF; in different languages such as English and Spanish; or transformed dynamically according to the hardware or software capabilities of the recipient), the resulting representation may depend on negotiation between the user agent and server.

Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Besides the languages, what would be the actual use case to have RDF and non-RDF?
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
images have metadata encoded in them
so do PDFs
you could retrieve that metadata
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
? Those are part of the same representation!
eg EXIF or XMP's RDF/XML are embedded in the host format.
I'm not aware of any server (yet alone a Solid server) extracting that information and making it available as RDF.
Although it'd be kind of cool.
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
so? RDFa is part of HTML, would it not make sense to serve its RDF?
in our case we have separate metadata about non-RDF resources in the triplestore, which gets served when RDF is requested
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
RDFa in HTML/XML-family is recognised as an RDF Source.
Not true for EXIF in JPEG or XMP's RDF/XML in PDF.
Separate data about the non-RDF resource makes sense and it'd be much easier to work with.
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
@sideshowtom as part of the ecosystem work undertaken by the interoperability panel we’re also working on additional classes and properties but it would be in addition to the current base.
Tom Gallivan
@sideshowtom
ok
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
were you looking for clarification on existing terms or considering some new ones for a specific purpose?
Tom Gallivan
@sideshowtom
My question was if that vocab is up to date with the spec work, and I'm getting two answers, 1) @csarven : 'why wouldn't it be, and don't ask here anyway' and 2) @justinwb 'no'. I will go with answer no. 2
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@sideshowtom Excuse me? I answered your question (and gave other important information) in solid/chat and invited you here to follow-up / for future questions. I even asked you again if I missed something because you happened to copy/paste your question as if nothing happened. I have no idea why you would frame all of that as "why wouldn't it be, and don't ask here anyway"... unless of course you have different motive. The context of "2018" is about what you wrote in the forum.
In case still unclear, YES, http://www.w3.org/ns/solid/terms is still in use by Solid servers and applications. It is also mentioned in the Solid ecosystem document: https://solid.github.io/specification/#namespaces and used in examples in the spec.
Happy to clarify that further.
Tom Gallivan
@sideshowtom
@csarven the question was if it was up to date with the spec work, and it looks to me like the answer is no. That's ok, I was just asking so that I could understand better. As for the rest of it, I think I characterized your answer reasonably. At some point I'll go through this thread again and maybe I'll see it differently. I know you have important work to do here and I don't want to get in the way. I am just a hobbyist here so it is not important anyway, but my motivations areg ood and constructive ones as I believe yours are too.
Tom Gallivan
@sideshowtom
/areg ood/are good/
Aaron Coburn
@acoburn
@csarven re: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/121#issuecomment-646111470 that all looks fine to me. It would seem very odd to be able to change a resource’s type from RDF to Binary. OTOH, I see no problem with a binary resource (image, etc) being able to respond with RDF via content negotiation.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@acoburn "change" is strange and not a good term to use in context of Solid. In order to do that, a server will need to track original payload's mediatype which would probably end up being similar to LDP server's promise with interaction models. Oops :) Alternatively, the Solid spec doesn't say anything and that would allow RDF and non-RDF representations to be available for the same resource, if so desired.