> The sioc:Site should be the domain name (without subdomains) of the web
> site hosting the community.
>
>
> the URI for LiveJournal's sioc:Site would be "http://livejournal.com", etc.
>
>
> That way:
>
> sioc:Site: "http://www.livejournal.com"
> sioc:Forum: "http://a_user.livejournal.com"
> sioc:Post: "http://a_user.livejournal.com/some_post"
>
> no?

I disagree.

1) What to do if we have only www.something.tld DNS record, but not
something.tld record? I don't think it is a good thing to use http: URIs with
hosts, that doesn't resolve.

2) What to do if www.something.tld is "301 Moved Permantenly" HTTP redirect to
something.tld (like in blogging platform / social network Blogiem.lv I am
developing)? HTTP/1.1 specification about 301 redirect says [1]: "The
requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future
references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs. Clients with
link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link references to the
Request-URI to one or more of the new references returned by the server,
where possible". So, IMHO it means that if http://www.blogiem.lv/ is 301
redirect to http://blogiem.lv, we could assume that "http://blogiem.lv"
owl:sameAs "http://blogiem.lv". I am wrong?

[1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3.2

--
Kristaps Kaupe
Mob. t. +371 29513269
Skype: kristapskaupe
http://kristaps.blogiem.lv

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Fred,

For the record, my argument against the Site/Forum distinction was
that it is awkward for *single-forum sites*, such as the typical self-
hosted weblog. What's the forum then and what's the site? Both are
either the same thing, or I have to invent an extra resource.

The problem was: I have a weblog at http://dowhatimean.net/.
Modelling a weblog in SIOC should be straightforward, no?

To me, my weblog is a single thing. One resource. But to describe it
properly with SIOC, I need to turn it into up to three resources: a
Forum, a Site, and a Community. Why make such a common scenario so
awkward?

Returning to your post, I think that sioc:Site is unnecessary even
for multi-forum communities, and using sioc:Community instead
addresses all the needs you've presented. More inline.

On 14 Dec 2006, at 20:12, Frederick Giasson wrote:
>> In [1] Richard Cygniak wrote: "I like sioc:Community much more than
>> sioc:Site. I think it's more flexible (just about anything can be
>> called a community if you squint the right way) and more interesting
>> than sioc:Site. I'd be happy with dropping sioc:Site and using
>> sioc:Community instead." - and - "The distinction between Site and
>> Forum is awkward, I don't want to introduce a top-level pseudo-forum
>> for the weblog. I'm not convinced that Site and the host properties
>> provide any value. "
>
> It could seems useless, however in my opinion it is really important.
>
> By example, what if I try to find all forums (users) on
> livejournal.com know by
> an hypothetic triple store?

> The problem is that this is something that I can't do with
> sioc:Community.
>
> Why? Because: "A sioc:Community is different from a sioc:Site - a
> site describes
> a single community site while a community can consist of a number
> of sites and
> other resources described in SIOC or other ontologies (e.g., FOAF)."
>
> So more than one source can belong to a sioc:Community. What if I
> only need
> sioc:Forums from a single source (domain)? I am back at my case #1.

To summarize, you say that you can't find all the forums on
livejournal.com if livejournal.com is modelled as a sioc:Community,
unless by using ugly and slow FILTER trickery.

How about this:

SELECT ?forum
WHERE {
a sioc:Community;
sioc:has_part ?forum .
?forum a sioc:Forum .
}

Easy, no?

The only thing you can't do that way is distinguish between single-
site communities and multi-site communities. For that you would
indeed need a FILTER. Do you have a use case where this distinction
matters *and* where the lower performance of FILTER and REGEX would
be a concern?

My main argument against sioc:Site is that it's redundant. You said:

> The sioc:Site should be the domain name (without subdomains) of the
> web site
> hosting the community.

Why duplicate information that is already in the URIs? Why not just
call it sioc:Domain then?

I suppose there is some underlying thing you want to represent with
the sioc:Site, beside just the domain name. What is it?

(Now the term sioc:ForumProvider is floating around in my head ...)

Richard

>
>
> Beware, SIOC was initially about online communities, but ultimately
> it can model
> much more than that, and deleting the Site class could make things
> worse on the
> long run.
>
> But it should be discussed.
>
>
>
>> Choosing the URIs is a practical question and it does not seem to be
>> very popular in responses to SIOC-Dev, but I believe choosing the
>> right
>> URIs is very important and can have a large impact.
>
>
> Think too.
>
>
>
> This was my two pennies to the discussion,
>
>
> Take care,
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---