Re: [office] Question for the TC about resolving the OpenDocument v1.2 namespace URIs

Michael (all),

We agree that it's expected and necessary to support content negotiation on the OASIS Library server(s) for the Linked Data resources, so we have plans underway to make that happen.  We also need to update the mine-types file.  I'll communicate with you as the changes are made.

Best wishes,

- Robin

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Michael Stahl <> wrote:

hello Robin,

sorry for taking so long to reply.

On 14/04/14 16:56, Robin Cover wrote:

> OpenDocument TC Members,

>

> On the matter of DNS+HTTP resolution of the two URI references

> (identifying namespace names) as mentioned earlier [1], I have fixed the

> OASIS Web server configuration so that the URIs now resolve.  However,

thanks for your work on this!

> my investigation into recommended server configurations for

> "semantic-web" style NS URIs [often the "hash" type] also prompts an

> additional question for the TC members:

>

> Do you have a preference as to whether the two URI references resolve to

> A or B ?

>

> A) directly to the formal OWL ontology files (.owl)

> B) indirectly, via the existing XML namespace documents

>

> Documentation available to me on this topic reflects varying

> professional opinion, as does past/current practice with respect to

> resolution that best serves the interests of the users, whether human

> agents or machines  [2].

>

> If you think OpenDocument v1.2 implementations involve semantic web

> applications that directly make use of the two namespace URIs -- e.g.,

> where a machine defeferences the URI so as to fetch and process the OWL

> (RFD/XML) source file --  then it may be preferable to implement "A" above

>

> If you think the XML namespace name URIs are typically (or exclusively)

> used by human agents, e.g., readers who view the prose OpenDocument

> specifications and click on the two corresponding hyperlinks from the

> spec cover page, then it may be preferable to implement "B", as is

> currently done

>

> As far as I know, I can implement "A" or "B" using server directives

> currently under our control, but I need to know which you prefer.

all the documents that i've read from the W3C indicate that it must be

possible to deliver the OWL ontology files if the client explicitly

requests it via the "Accept: application/rdf+xml" header, i.e., this is

a hard requirement... and if content negotiation is not currently

possible on the OASIS server, then that means the URI should directly

resolve to the OWL ontology.

regards,

 michael

> d) http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results#

  ^ interestingly, although this one is related to RDF it is actually

not defined by a RDF schema or ontology but by XML Schema.

--

Michael Stahl | Software Engineer

Platform Engineering - Desktop Team

Red Hat

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.

See how it works at redhat.com

Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Sitz: Grasbrunn,

Handelsregister: Amtsgericht München, HRB 153243

Geschäftsführer: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Paul Hickey,

Charles Peters

-- 
Robin Cover
OASIS, Director of Information Services
Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink
Email: 

Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/people/staff/robin-cover
Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/

Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html
Tel: +1 972-296-1783