- From: Martynas Jusevicius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Date: 2012年8月16日 12:41:05 +0300
- To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAE35Vmx5=LXJ668dY5s7XbHJB_eYkq51NyVj1BJ5hH7BtWbXWw@mail.gmail.com>
Hey all, I'm RDFizing Twitter, and the problem is that its API is not based on content negotiation and uses a different set of URIs than those serving HTML to end-users (this issue is not Twitter-specific though). For example, these URIs return roughly the same data: HTML: https://twitter.com/graphityhq/status/235335486707732480 XML: http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/235335486707732480.xml Which URI should be used in RDF? If I'm using SIOC, should it be <https://twitter.com/graphityhq/status/235335486707732480> sioc:content "Graphity #LinkedData..." ; or <http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/235335486707732480.xml> sioc:content "Graphity #LinkedData..." ; ? SIOC also has a special sioc:link property, and then there is owl:sameAs and dct:isFormatOf, so I could relate the 2 URIs: <http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/235335486707732480.xml> sioc:link <https://twitter.com/graphityhq/status/235335486707732480> <http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/235335486707732480.xml> owl:sameAs <https://twitter.com/graphityhq/status/235335486707732480> <http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/235335486707732480.xml> dct:isFormatOf <https://twitter.com/graphityhq/status/235335486707732480> Would all of these statements be correct? Any best practices for modeling in this situation? Advice appreciated. Martynas graphity.org
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 09:41:32 UTC