Move reference versions of the RDF and RDFS vocabulary to this repo #33
Conversation
ns/rdf.ttl retrieved from https://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns ns/rdfs.ttl retrieved from https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema
pchampin
added
the
needs discussion
|
And which seems to be RDF/XML whatever is asked for. |
oh wow! I didn't notice that...
... and not very portable! Jena, Ruby RDF and RDFlib (python) all produce different triples from it!... |
Oh. The <rdf:Description about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema-more">I would love to see more of this vocabulary translation practice (or some version thereof; maybe even using |
|
The rdf-schema-more resource returns as the following RDF/XML: <rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
<rdfs:seeAlso>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/combined-ns-translation.rdf.fr">
<dc:language>fr</dc:language>
</rdf:Description>
</rdfs:seeAlso>
<rdfs:comment xml:lang="en" rdf:parseType="literal">
<p xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
The <a href="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#</a>
namespace contains the RDF Schema vocabulary as defined by
the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema">RDF Schema
Candidate Recommendation</a>
</p>
</rdfs:comment>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema-more">
<rdfs:comment xml:lang="en" rdf:parseType="literal">
<p xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema-more">This document</a>
provides additional statements about the
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">RDF Schema namespace</a>.
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label">label</a> and
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment">comment</a>
properties with values in other languages might be linked from here
by further rdfs:seeAlso properties.
</p>
</rdfs:comment>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>I'd say it's way out of date, and can be omitted in the future. |
|
@pchampin I pushed initial version of generation other versions from Turtle. Please take a look. |
No Content-type.
I agree with @gkellogg - Better to not maintain it, at least for now. There seems no evidence of use (it's broken and it is possible to add later. |
| # Convert Turtle -> RDF/XML | ||
| /home/runner/bin/riot --syntax=turtle --output=rdfxml ns/${base}.ttl > ns/${base}.rdf | ||
| # Convert Turtle -> JSON-LD | ||
| /home/runner/bin/riot --syntax=turtle --output=jsonld ns/${base}.ttl > ns/${base}.jsonld |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be nice to use a context such as below to get more useful JSON-LD output:
{
"id": "@id",
"type": "@type",
"dc": "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/",
"owl": "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#",
"rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
"rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
"title": {"@id": "dc:title"},
"description": {"@id": "dc:description"},
"date": {"@id": "dc:date", "@type": "xsd:date"},
"comment": {"@id": "rdfs:comment"},
"domain": {"@id": "rdfs:domain", "@type": "@id"},
"label": {"@id": "rdfs:label"},
"range": {"@id": "rdfs:range", "@type": "@id"},
"isDefinedBy": {"@id": "rdfs:isDefinedBy", "@type": "@vocab"},
"seeAlso": {"@id": "rdfs:seeAlso", "@type": "@id"},
"subClassOf": {"@id": "rdfs:subClassOf", "@type": "@id"},
"subPropertyOf": {"@id": "rdfs:subPropertyOf", "@type": "@id"},
"imports": {"@id": "owl:imports", "@type": "@id"},
"versionInfo": {"@id": "owl:versionInfo", "@type": "@id"}
}See the JSON-LD Playground to see how this comes out. If there is another templating engine which can generate HTML using the JSON-LD as an input that can generate a human readable version of the vocabulary that would work better with the existing dependencies, then cool. Otherwise, there is the Ruby-based Haml engine used for the JSON-LD vocabulary generation.
This isn't how other namespace documents handle this, as the namespace is not the spec. Redirection for each vocabulary entry would be difficult, given that we use a hash ("#") to determine each resource, which is not available when redirecting. I think a simple generated HTML file, which can include its own references into the spec for each entry, is probably the way to go. Probably best to leave for a subsequent PR, though. |
Or get the Turtle and conneg sorted out, and leave the HTML to "maintenance mode". Just getting the namespace content into a managed form is good progress. |
Clients should keep the fragment identifier (in so many words) on a redirect (the identifier is of course not sent to the server). And AFAIK all web browsers do this. Example: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept (should redirect to https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html and the brower should add back (It would be tricky to redirect both the |
The goal of this PR is to have a reference version of the RDF and RDFS vocabularies in this repository,
where future changes will be tracked,
and to reflect the final version on https://www.w3.org/ when we publish the recommendation.
As a start, this PR introduces
ns/rdf.ttl: retrieved from https://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns (accept:text/turtle)ns/rdfs.ttl: retrieved from https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema (accept:text/turtle)Plan for this PR: