Consolidated Recipes Issues List for Amsterdam Face-to-Face

Last revision: 24 September 2007

ISSUE-16

Default behavior

State:
OPEN
Product:
Recipes
Raised by:
Jon Phipps
Opened on:
2007-02-13
Description:
http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#default
Currently says: "Performing content negotiation based on the value of the
'User-agent:' header field is not generally considered good practice, @@TODO why."
Related emails:
  1. [RECIPES] 'Issue 1.3' (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  2. [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  3. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk on 2007-09-18)
  4. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2007-09-18)
  5. [ALL] agenda 25 Sep telecon - 1500 UTC (from schreiber@cs.vu.nl on 2007-09-24)
  6. RE: [ALL] agenda 25 Sep telecon - 1500 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at on 2007-09-24)
  7. RE: [ALL] agenda 25 Sep telecon - 1500 UTC (from vit.novacek@deri.org on 2007-09-24)

Related notes:

2007-02-13: This was discussed at the F2F meeting in Boston and Ralph agreed to write a brief description of how User Agent-based negotiation limits/stifles the creation of new User Agents in the future, citing past negative experience.

2007-09-15: http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-swd-minutes.html#action09 http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action14

ISSUE-17

Recipe 6 is incomplete

State:
OPEN
Product:
Recipes
Raised by:
Jon Phipps
Opened on:
2007-02-13
Description:
http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#recipe6

says: "@@TODO this recipe is included as a placeholder, as its best practice
implementation currently requires further investigation, discussion and testing,
but is anticipated to be an important part of this document, 'completing the
set' of the most commonly needed configurations."
Related emails:
  1. [Recipes] discussion on Recipe 6 (and regrets) (from diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org on 2007-03-18)

Related notes:

2007-02-13: This was discussed at the F2F meeting in Boston in January 2007. Diego will perform "further investigation, discussion and testing" and write a first draft of the recipe.

2007-09-24: There is a new draft here: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/BestPracticeRecipe6

ISSUE-18

QA Review comments from Karl Dubost

This issue has intentionally not been included

ISSUE-19

Recipes should supply a general server configuration template

State:
OPEN
Product:
Recipes
Raised by:
Jon Phipps
Opened on:
2007-02-13
Description:
The Recipes are specific to an Apache server, but may be applicable in
non-Apache environments. It would be useful to provide a general-purpose
configuration template for use by people setting up non-Apache servers"

As part of his QA review KKarl Dubost said...
"...here there's a good opportunity to create a template and/or invite people to
submit bindings to the Mailing List, id est how people applied this recipe in
this particular server environment, Web Apps Framework, HTTP Servers only, etc.
That would help other people to find the information. With a proposed template,
it would help people to collect, gather the information."

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/BestPracticeRecipesIssues/QaReviewSummary#head-3d24132de03d1b1b65a24aafeda257e78be72da1
Related emails:
  1. [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  2. [RECIPES] Amsterdam topic 'Recipes' (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  3. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk on 2007-09-18)
  4. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2007-09-18)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

ISSUE-20

Online server testing

State:
OPEN
Product:
Recipes
Raised by:
Jon Phipps
Opened on:
2007-02-14
Description:
The recipes provide example URIs and example responses. Diego has written some
httpUnit tests. Since the tests already exist, it would be very useful to make
these available online to provide a server validation service.

See Diego's email: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Dec/0048.html
Related emails:
  1. [Recipes] towards an online validation tool for best practices (from diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org on 2007-03-16)
  2. [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  3. [RECIPES] Amsterdam topic 'Recipes' (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  4. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk on 2007-09-18)
  5. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2007-09-18)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

ISSUE-21

Apache configuration should add that mod_rewrite must be loaded and enabled

This issue has intentionally not been included

ISSUE-22

Questioning reference to 'IE6 hack'

State:
OPEN
Product:
Recipes
Raised by:
Bernard Horan
Opened on:
2007-02-14
Description:
In http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#negotiation there is reference
to a hack that's required for Internet Explorer browser clients. The
paragraph begins as follows:

"In recipes 3, 4, 5, and 6 below, RDF/XML is configured as the default
response. This is chosen to minimize the impact on deployed Semantic Web
applications that do not currently send appropriate 'Accept:' header
field values for RDF content. Note that, however, with RDF as the
default response, a 'hack' has to be included..."

The issue I'd like to raise is two fold:

1) wordsmithing:

a) Suggest that there's a new para/section titled something like
"Workaround for Internet Explorer". At the moment the details of the
hack merge in with the rest of the default behaviour.

b) the use of "hack" and "peculiar" is somewhat pejorative!

c) the layout of the itemised instructions is confusing to read, as
they're broken up by a yellow line of directive


2) ambiguity
I think we need to come down on one side of the fence on whether this
"hack" should be included. Either (a) we remove from the document any
suggestion that the reader should delete the directive and just insert
an explanation as to why it's needed; or (b) explain that IE clients
will need this directive and include it _commented out_ in the recipes
so that implementers may include it. I favour (a).
Related emails:
  1. [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  2. [RECIPES] Amsterdam topic 'Recipes' (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  3. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk on 2007-09-18)
  4. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2007-09-18)

Related notes:

2007-02-14: There was some discussion about this at the January F2F in Boston: http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action12 (scroll up from there).

2007-02-14: Diego was asked to verify that the hack was still necessary for IE7 (http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action13) and he reported that it did (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jan/0076.html)

2007-02-14: Corrected links for above note. See: http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action13 -- and he reported that it did. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jan/0076.html

ISSUE-23

There should be some discussion of alternatives to .htaccess

State:
OPEN
Product:
Recipes
Raised by:
Jon Phipps
Opened on:
2007-02-14
Description:
Many organizations, for performance and security reasons, don't allow the use of
AllowOveride and this precludes the use of .htaccess files completely. We should
include a section that specifically addresses this:

1. Briefly discuss the relative performance and security disadvantages of
.htaccess files, or at least point to such a discussion.

2. Discuss the possibility of enabling AllowOveride on a directory-specific
rather than a global basis to address those issues

3. Point out that each of the recipes can be implemented directly in httpd.conf
files without enabling AllowOveride and show how to do that for at least one of them

4. Include a recipe that rewrites the URL to a very simple cgi script (examples
in perl, php) that would handle the actual redirect. This appears to be the way
the recipes are often implemented.

Related emails:
  1. [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  2. [RECIPES] Amsterdam topic 'Recipes' (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  3. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk on 2007-09-18)
  4. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2007-09-18)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

ISSUE-24

Additional text explaining redirect choices in the recipes

State:
OPEN
Product:
Recipes
Raised by:
Jon Phipps
Opened on:
2007-02-14
Description:
There have been a number of instances where Alistair et al have answered
questions about the reasoning behind the use of 'conditional rewrites' and
redirects in the recipes (I'm sure there are more):

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0016.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0076
http://dowhatimean.net/2006/11/content-negotiation-with-hash-uris-long#comment-15928

It would be a good idea to answer those questions directly in the document,
either at the top or in an Appendix.
Related emails:
  1. [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  2. [RECIPES] Amsterdam topic 'Recipes' (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  3. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk on 2007-09-18)
  4. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2007-09-18)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

ISSUE-30

Determine how and if RDDL relates to the Recipes

State:
RAISED
Product:
Recipes
Raised by:
Alistair Miles
Opened on:
2007-03-13
Description:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Dec/0086.html

Figuring out if and how the cookbook and RDDL [1] fit together is probably
something we should look at ... 

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDDL

related:
http://norman.walsh.name/2006/12/18/rddl

Associating Resources with Namespaces
Draft TAG Finding 13 December 2005
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/


Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-30: Determine how and if RDDL relates to the Resipes (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2007-03-13)
  2. RE: ISSUE-30: Determine how and if RDDL relates to the Resipes (from A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk on 2007-03-19)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

ISSUE-58

.htaccess 'accept header' ONLY responds to a header which EXACTLY matches

State:
OPEN
Product:
Recipes
Raised by:
Jon Phipps
Opened on:
2007-07-17
Description:
Per Tim BL

"The recipe for responding to an accept header only responds to a header which
EXACTLY matches "application/rdf+xml". However, a client may send (and often
will) a header with many  comma-separated values, and they may have quality
parameters (q=0.xx).

This is a serious problem as people are copying the recipe, and making sites
which do not work."

This applies to Recipes 3, 4, 5 and references this part of the .htaccess Apache
configuration:


"...

# Rewrite rule to serve RDF/XML content if requested 
RewriteCond %{HTTP_ACCEPT} application/rdf\\+xml

..."

The rewrite condition regular expression: "application/rdf\\+xml" 
needs to be rewritten
Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-58: .htaccess \\'accept header\\' ONLY responds to a header which EXACTLY matches \\'application/rdf+xml\\' (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2007-07-17)
  2. Re: [Recipes] ISSUE-58: .htaccess 'accept header' ONLY responds to a header which EXACTLY matches \\'application/rdf+xml\\' (from diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org on 2007-07-18)
  3. RE: [Recipes] ISSUE-58: .htaccess 'accept header' ONLY responds to a header which EXACTLY matches \\'application/rdf+xml\\' (from A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk on 2007-07-24)
  4. Re: [Recipes] ISSUE-58: .htaccess 'accept header' ONLY responds to a header which EXACTLY matches \\'application/rdf+xml\\' (from diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org on 2007-07-25)
  5. RE: [Recipes] ISSUE-58: .htaccess 'accept header' ONLY responds to a header which EXACTLY matches \\'application/rdf+xml\\' (from A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk on 2007-07-30)
  6. RE: [Recipes] ISSUE-58: .htaccess 'accept header' ONLY responds to a header which EXACTLY matches \\'application/rdf+xml\\' (from diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org on 2007-08-06)
  7. Re: Agenda - Sep 04 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org on 2007-09-04)
  8. [ALL] Discussion of 'Recipes' in Amsterdam (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-04)
  9. [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  10. [RECIPES] Amsterdam topic 'Recipes' (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-09-15)
  11. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk on 2007-09-18)
  12. Re: [ALL] Agenda - Sep 18 2007 SWD telecon - 1500 UTC (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2007-09-18)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

The last email related to this...
From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:52:13 +0100
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D030E460A@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: "Diego Berrueta" <diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Diego,

I remembered, there is a relatively simple configuration which allows q-values to be handled. E.g. if there is a single 303 redirect from the vocabulary URI to a second resource, and then content negotiation is performed from the second resource, you can use apache's built-in content negotiation support (via multiviews or type maps). N.B. this configuration *does not* do "conditional redirects", but does content negotiate *after* the first redirect.

The problem with this configuration is that the HTML and RDF files must reside in the same directory on the same server. We didn't like that at the time, because e.g. W3C and dublin core both tend to put the HTML and RDF files in different directories, so you have to do conditional redirects.

Cheers,

Al.

--
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman

Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Diego Berrueta
> Sent: 25 July 2007 11:37
> To: SWD WG
> Subject: Re: [Recipes] ISSUE-58: .htaccess 'accept header' 
> ONLY responds to a header which EXACTLY matches 
> \"application/rdf+xml\"
> 
> 
> I've run some additional tests. Find results below:
> 
> (Case e) [same as c&d, but without the q-values]
>   Accept:                 application/rdf+xml,text/html
>   Expected Content-Type:  application/rdf+xml
>   Actual Content-Type:    text/html
>   Result: FAILURE
> 
> (Case f)
>   Accept:                 text/html,application/rdf+xml
>   Expected Content-Type:  text/html
>   Actual Content-Type:    text/html
>   Result: Success
> 
> Some additional conclusions:
> 
> * Like cases (c) and (d), swapping the order of the rules in 
> .htaccess also inverts the results, i.e., (e) works fine, but 
> (f) fails.
> 
> * I suspect the regular expressions can be refitted in order 
> to make cases (e) and (f) succeed at the same time. I have to 
> work more on this and, hopefully, I'll propose the necessary 
> changes in the R.E.
> 
> * However, cases (c) and (d) are much more challenging due to 
> the presence of the q-values, and I still can't imagine how 
> to fix them using regular expressions.
> 
> * There are also other challenges, like MIME type masks with 
> asterisks.
> For instance, a request containg the following Accept header 
> is valid and should return HTML (text/html), but of course, 
> it isn't matched by our regular expressions:
> 
>    Accept: text/*
> 
> Regards,
> 
> El mié, 18-07-2007 a las 16:16 +0200, Diego Berrueta escribió:
> > I made some testing on this issue using Vapour [1]. These are the 
> > relevant results for Recipe 3 (Recipes 4 and 5 are similar). In all 
> > the cases, a GET request was made for the 
> [vocabulary|class|property] 
> > URI, using a number of different values for the Accept header. I 
> > compared the expected Content-Type against the actual Content-Type 
> > returned by the
> > server:
> > 
> > (Case a)
> >   Accept: application/rdf+xml;q=0.5
> >   Expected Content-Type: application/rdf+xml
> >   Actual Content-Type: application/rdf+xml
> >   Result: Success
> > 
> > (Case b)
> >   Accept: text/html;q=0.5
> >   Expected Content-Type: text/html
> >   Actual Content-Type: text/html
> >   Result: Success
> > 
> > (Case c)
> >   Accept: application/rdf+xml;q=0.3,text/html;q=.5
> >   Expected Content-Type: text/html (due to higher "q"-value)
> >   Actual Content-Type: text/html
> >   Result: Success
> > 
> > (Case d)
> >   Accept: application/rdf+xml;q=0.5,text/html;q=.3
> >   Expected Content-Type: application/rdf+xml (due to higher 
> "q"-value)
> >   Actual Content-Type: text/html
> >   Result: FAILURE

> > 
> > My conclusions:
> > 
> > * Test cases (a) and (b) work fine because the regular expressions 
> > don't have begin-of-line and end-of-line delimiters (i.e.: 
> symbols ^ 
> > and $ respectively). Therefore, the additional ";q=0.5" 
> substring at 
> > the end of the Accept header is silently skipped.
> > 
> > * Test case (c) works fine because of the order of the RewriteRule 
> > sentences in the .htaccess file. The first rule (the one 
> that matches 
> > any Accept header that contains 'text/html') has precedence, so the 
> > appropiate redirection is returned.
> > 
> > * Unfortunately, test case (d) fails for the same reason. The first 
> > rule produces an undesired match and shadows the second one. The 
> > values of the "q" parameters are opaque to the regular expression.
> > 
> > * If we swap the order of the RewriteRules in the 
> .htaccess, then (d) 
> > will succeed, but (c) will fail.
> > 
> > * As TimBL said, there is a serious problem, because content 
> > negotiation is not working properly. We fail to deliver the 
> preferred 
> > content-type even if it is actually available! (see case (d)).
> > 
> > * It seems to me that this issue cannot be easily solved with the 
> > current regex approach, due to the inability of the regex 
> to compare 
> > numerical values (AFAIK). In practical terms, the list of 
> MIME types 
> > cannot be ordered by their "q"-value.
> > 
> > I hope I'm not missing anything. Creative ideas on how to fix this 
> > issue would be greatly appreciated!
> > 
> > [1] http://vapour.sourceforge.net/

> > 
> 
> --
> Diego Berrueta
> R&D Department  -  CTIC Foundation
> E-mail: diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org
> Phone: +34 984 29 12 12
> Parque Científico Tecnológico Gijón-Asturias-Spain 
> www.fundacionctic.org
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 15:52:35 GMT

ISSUE-60

Guidelines needed for proper construction of vocabulary scheme and 'term' URIs

State:
RAISED
Product:
Recipes
Raised by:
Jon Phipps
Opened on:
2007-09-18
Description:
The recipes don't spend very much time discussing best practices for URI
construction for vocabulary schemes and 'terms'.

Based on a request by the International Press Telecommunications Council:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Sep/0023.html

They are seeking guidance wrt construction of URIs to identify taxonomy schemes
and "terms". They have two questions:

1.  Should we opt for "#" or "#_" or "/" or "?" or "?<foo>=" or 
    some other string as the scheme URI terminator?

2.  What mechanism should we adopt for constructing code URIs?
(By "Code URIs" they mean a mapping of URI to existing term codes: "...we
decided to continue using the large number of existing codes that are used in
News and related industries today.")

Below is the full text of the email that raised the questions:

Introduction
------------

Below is a draft statement of matters on which the International 
Press Telecommunications Council [1] seeks help from the W3C and 
from the broader Semantic Web community.

The statement hasn't yet been reviewed by the relevant IPTC 
groups, but to save time I'm sending it in draft form.  We would 
very much like to have these matters resolved by the time of the 
next IPTC meeting on 15-17 October 2007, in Prague.


Background
----------

The IPTC decided a few years ago that its new G2 family of News 
Exchange standards must be compatible with the Semantic Web.  We 
decided that:

1.  Terms from taxonomies used for News would be associated with 
    individual URIs.

2.  We would encourage the use of GRDDL to convert News marked 
    up with metadata into forms understood by SemWeb tools.

At the same time we decided to continue using the large number 
of existing codes that are used in News and related industries 
today.

To reconcile these two requirements (SemWeb plus existing codes), 
we chose an approach somewhat similar to QNAMEs, though with 
several significant differences. The approach is:

-  Codes exist within (coding) schemes.  Familiar examples are:
      ISO 4217 alpha codes
      ISO 4217 numeric codes
      ISO 3166-1 two-letter alpha codes
      ISO 3166-1 three-letter alpha codes
      ISO 3166-1 numeric alpha codes
      IETF BCP 47 language tags

    Possibly less familar examples are:
      CUSIPs (eg "037833100", Apple Computer)
      ISBNs(eg "0-321-18578-1", The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0)
      ISSNs (eg "0261-3077", The Guardian)
      SEDOLs (eg "0263494", BAE Systems)
      Valorens (eg "1203203", UBS)

-  Each coding scheme is associated with a URI.  That URI *must* 
   resolve to a resource (or resources) containing information 
   about the scheme.

-  Each scheme URI is locally mapped to a prefix.

-  There are almost no constraints on the values of codes.  For 
   example, a code may start with a digit.

-  A qualified code (QCODE) is expressed in the form:
      prefix:code

-  We shall define rules for how scheme URIs should be terminated.
   These rules may take the form of guidelines.

-  We shall define rules for the construction of a code URI from 
   the corresponding scheme URI and the code.  These rules may or 
   may not specify simple concatenation.

-  In the case of schemes controlled by the News industry, each 
   code URI *must* resolve to a resource or (content negotiated) 
   resources containing information about the code.

-  In the case of schemes used but not not controlled by the News 
   industry, each code URI *should* resolve to a resource or 
   (content negotiated) resources containing information about 
   the code.


Matters we need help with
-------------------------

1.  Should we opt for "#" or "#_" or "/" or "?" or "?<foo>=" or 
    some other string as the scheme URI terminator?

2.  What mechanism should we adopt for constructing code URIs?

    Simple concatenation would work for (made up) URIs such as:
       www.iptc.org/taxonomies/subjects#_
       www.iptc.org/taxonomies/subjects/
       www.iptc.org/taxonomies/subjects?
       www.iptc.org/taxonomies/subjects?code=

    It would not work for:
       www.iptc.org/taxonomies/subjects#
    as the resulting URI would not be legal for HTML if the code 
    started with a digit.

    The alternative is to inject some buffer string during the 
    construction of the code URI.  This would probably have to be 
    a fixed string for all News taxonomies, as the alternative of 
    retrieving (from the scheme URI?) per-scheme rules seems too 
    burdensome for the recipient.

    Such a string could be, eg "_", so allowing a scheme URI such 
    as:
       www.iptc.org/taxonomies/subjects#
    and a code URI such as:
       www.iptc.org/taxonomies/subjects#_12345678

    Alternatively, such a string could be, eg "#_", so allowing a 
    scheme URI such as:
       www.iptc.org/taxonomies/subjects
    and a code URI such as:
       www.iptc.org/taxonomies/subjects#_12345678

    The disadvantage of both approaches is that such a rule would 
    make it difficult for people to use scheme URIs such as:
       www.iptc.org/taxonomies/subjects/
       www.iptc.org/taxonomies/subjects?
       www.iptc.org/taxonomies/subjects?code=

3.  We would very much appreciate help in developing a GRDDL 
    script for our G2 standards.  Nearly two years ago we 
    developed a script to convert NewsML-G2 to RDF triples 
    (N-Triples).  We were not, however, able to figure out how to 
    handle statements about statements.  Note that for each piece 
    of descriptive metadata we support attributes such as:
       creator
       date modified
       confidence
       relevance
       why present

    Thus one can, losely speaking, express:

       On 7 September 2007, Reuters stated that this News item 
       has a subject of:
       -  George W. Bush (with 60% confidence)
       -  George H. W. Bush (with 40% confidence)

    We appreciate that the best way to handle statements about 
    statements may still be unresolved within the SemWeb 
    community.

4.  We request that the W3C and the broader Semantic Web 
    community take our requirements into consideration in the 
    development of new specifications and tools, and in the 
    enhancement of existing ones.  We are aware that some of 
    these assume particular URI formats, eg the presence of a "#" 
    as a separator or the absence of a digit after such a "#".

[1] http://www.iptc.org/

Thank you

Misha Wolf
News Standards Manager
Reuters

Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-60: Guidelines needed for proper construction of vocabulary scheme and \\'term\\' URIs (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2007-09-18)

Related notes:

No additional notes.