RDF and Memento

91 views
Skip to first unread message

bse...@amherst.edu

unread,
Sep 17, 2017, 1:17:51 PM9/17/17
to Memento Development
Hello, 

We over at Fedora [1] are currently working on how to implement versioning using Memento standards.   

We're currently planning on using the pattern where the URI-R = the URI-G and the TimeMap would be a separate LDP Container resource.

Given this setup, we'll need to have some information regarding these mementos contained by the TimeMap LDP Container as RDF triples. I'm wondering if anyone has done this before and if so, what RDF ontologies you used to represent the necessary information that's used to create the TimeMap when a GET request is sent to the TimeMap container.  

Best regards,
Bethany

Herbert Van de Sompel

unread,
Sep 18, 2017, 4:49:14 AM9/18/17
to memen...@googlegroups.com, Herbert Van de Sompel
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:38 PM, <bse...@amherst.edu> wrote:
Hello, 

We over at Fedora [1] are currently working on how to implement versioning using Memento standards.   

We're currently planning on using the pattern where the URI-R = the URI-G and the TimeMap would be a separate LDP Container resource.


Yes, indeed, I remember these discussions.
 
Given this setup, we'll need to have some information regarding these mementos contained by the TimeMap LDP Container as RDF triples. I'm wondering if anyone has done this before and if so, what RDF ontologies you used to represent the necessary information that's used to create the TimeMap when a GET request is sent to the TimeMap container.  


Just to make sure I understand the question correctly: 

As per RFC7089, Memento TimeMap information is shared using the application/link-format MIME type, not an RDF serialization, see http://mementoweb.org/guide/rfc/#Pattern6

But I assume that you are referring to the internal representation of TimeMap information (URI-R, URI-G, URI-Ms, datetime, mime type, ...) in RDF, to be used in a LDP Container? And that information would then be rendered as application/link-format when it is requested by a Memento client?

Cheers

Herbert



 

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memento-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

==

bse...@amherst.edu

unread,
Sep 19, 2017, 8:19:21 AM9/19/17
to Memento Development
Hello Herbert, 


Just to make sure I understand the question correctly: 

As per RFC7089, Memento TimeMap information is shared using the application/link-format MIME type, not an RDF serialization, see http://mementoweb.org/guide/rfc/#Pattern6

But I assume that you are referring to the internal representation of TimeMap information (URI-R, URI-G, URI-Ms, datetime, mime type, ...) in RDF, to be used in a LDP Container? And that information would then be rendered as application/link-format when it is requested by a Memento client?


Thanks for your response. 

Yes, you understand my question correctly. This is more about the internal structure, which will be RDF.  We will still return the 'application/link-format' MIME type format on a request for TimeMap information.  I'm wondering if folks have done this before and what ontologies they may used to represent that data (internally). 

 
Best,
Bethany
 
Cheers

Herbert



 

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memento-dev...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Herbert Van de Sompel

unread,
Sep 19, 2017, 8:23:56 AM9/19/17
to memen...@googlegroups.com, Herbert Van de Sompel
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:29 PM, <bse...@amherst.edu> wrote:
Hello Herbert, 


Just to make sure I understand the question correctly: 

As per RFC7089, Memento TimeMap information is shared using the application/link-format MIME type, not an RDF serialization, see http://mementoweb.org/guide/rfc/#Pattern6

But I assume that you are referring to the internal representation of TimeMap information (URI-R, URI-G, URI-Ms, datetime, mime type, ...) in RDF, to be used in a LDP Container? And that information would then be rendered as application/link-format when it is requested by a Memento client?


Thanks for your response. 

Yes, you understand my question correctly. This is more about the internal structure, which will be RDF.  We will still return the 'application/link-format' MIME type format on a request for TimeMap information.  I'm wondering if folks have done this before and what ontologies they may used to represent that data (internally). 

 

Got it. Early on in the memento work, we actually had an RDF "track" too. But that never made it into the RFC. Robert Sanderson who was still on my team then did some work on that. I will ping him to see whether that work might still be around somewhere, and, if so, whether it would still be relevant today. I will keep you posted. Or maybe Rob sees this message.

BTW, I also noticed that the W3C Time Ontology made it to proposed recommendation level, see https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/ That might be relevant in this case too.

Cheers

Herbert

 
Best,
Bethany
 
Cheers

Herbert



 

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memento-dev...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

==

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memento-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Andrew Woods

unread,
Oct 29, 2017, 8:54:24 PM10/29/17
to Memento Development
Hello Herbert and All,
The conversation around finding or establishing a home ontology for Memento terms continues in the context of the Fedora API Specification:

One suggestion in the above GitHub issue is to define Memento terms in the LDP namespace. However, it would seem that the most logical namespace for the following terms would be in a Memento ontology:
* memento:OriginalResource
* memento:TimeMap
* memento:Memento
* memento:TimeGate

In the short-term, we may need to define the terms in the Fedora ontology... but that would hopefully be a stop-gap measure.

Assuming the need for defining the above terms in an RDF ontology, I would like to ask this group's opinion on where those terms should live and if there is interest in collaborating in moving that process forward.

Best regards,
Andrew

Herbert Van de Sompel

unread,
Oct 31, 2017, 11:41:13 AM10/31/17
to memen...@googlegroups.com, Herbert Van de Sompel
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Woods <awo...@fedora-commons.org> wrote:
Hello Herbert and All,
The conversation around finding or establishing a home ontology for Memento terms continues in the context of the Fedora API Specification:


If I remember correctly, it was Sarven's suggestion to mint the notion of a versioned resource in the LDP ontology. He suggested:

fcrepo:VersionedResource becomes ldp:VersionedResource

I support this idea because it would add a concept to LDP that is sorely missing. However, when doing so, one probably also needs to define how to interact (access, CRUD) with such resources. The Fedora API has guidelines with that regard, but, eventually it would be constructive to look at this problem from a general LDP perspective: how to handle versions in LDP.
 
One suggestion in the above GitHub issue is to define Memento terms in the LDP namespace. However, it would seem that the most logical namespace for the following terms would be in a Memento ontology:
* memento:OriginalResource
* memento:TimeMap
* memento:Memento
* memento:TimeGate


While I much support adding the notion of a version resource to LDP, I am not convinced either that all these terms should be there too. They seem too specific and should indeed preferably be in a Memento ontology. There are, of course, also the link relation types that connect these concepts to take into account. They have all been defined in the IANA registry, i.e. "memento", "original", "timemap", "timegate". And, unfortunately, despite a lot of discussion in the course of revising RFC5988 (see https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39 and https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/140), no language was added to RFC8288 that describes a way to express IANA link relation types as URIs. And there are the notions of "archival datetime" and "immutable resource" to take into account when it comes to Mementos.  

We at LANL would be willing to host an ontology at mementoweb.org and contribute to the process of creating it. But I need to be honest by saying that the team over here is currently pretty busy, so taking the lead in this is not really an option, at this point. As I may have mentioned, Rob Sanderson created something many years ago but I have not heard back from him as to whether it is still around. I will ping him again. Maybe what was done years ago could be a starting point ...

Cheers

Herbert

 
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memento-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Herbert Van de Sompel

unread,
Nov 2, 2017, 8:14:26 PM11/2/17
to memen...@googlegroups.com, Herbert Van de Sompel
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Woods <awo...@fedora-commons.org> wrote:
Hello Herbert and All,
The conversation around finding or establishing a home ontology for Memento terms continues in the context of the Fedora API Specification:

One suggestion in the above GitHub issue is to define Memento terms in the LDP namespace. However, it would seem that the most logical namespace for the following terms would be in a Memento ontology:
* memento:OriginalResource
* memento:TimeMap
* memento:Memento
* memento:TimeGate

In the short-term, we may need to define the terms in the Fedora ontology... but that would hopefully be a stop-gap measure.



I worked on a Memento ontology. The first stab is at http://mementoweb.org/ns.rdf

Feedback very welcome. I left an open issue in a comment in the ontology doc.

We will eventually put RDF/XML, Turtle, and maybe JSON-LD up there and support content negotiation with http://mementoweb.org/ns

Cheers

Herbert

 
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memento-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Sawood Alam

unread,
Nov 2, 2017, 9:01:52 PM11/2/17
to memento-dev
Herbert,

This is a great resource. However, I noted a minor issue in the way it is being served right now. I think the web server is incorrectly deciding the content-type automatically based on the file extension. Should't it be "application/rdf+xml" instead?

Best,

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: nginx/1.10.1
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:54:34 GMT
Content-Type: application/rdf
Content-Length: 7853
Connection: keep-alive
Last-Modified: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:25:57 GMT
ETag: "809b8-1ead-55d0925fd4f40"
Accept-Ranges: bytes


--
Sawood Alam
Department of Computer Science
Old Dominion University
Norfolk VA 23529

Sawood Alam

unread,
Nov 2, 2017, 9:13:25 PM11/2/17
to memento-dev
This looks like a good tool for quick conversion into JSON-LD or other formats. http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/

Best,

--
Sawood Alam
Department of Computer Science
Old Dominion University
Norfolk VA 23529


Herbert Van de Sompel

unread,
Nov 2, 2017, 9:41:17 PM11/2/17
to memen...@googlegroups.com
Hi Sawood

Indeed. As I mentioned, the whole HTTP setup is not OK yet. We will get that right once the onto is stable. Meaning, it's not really released yet ;-)

Cheers

Herbert

Herbert Van de Sompel

unread,
Nov 3, 2017, 10:23:27 AM11/3/17
to Bethany Seeger, memen...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Bethany Seeger <bse...@amherst.edu> wrote:
Hi Herbert, 

This is great – I’m excited to see this ontology coming together.  I  just looked through the rdf and had a question about this property: 

  


The "memento" relation is among others used to point from the Memento one currently interacts with to other "important" Mementos, i.e. the previous/next Memento, the first/last Memento. In the Link header that is done by expressing 2 links in one go, e.g. 

Link: <http://a.example.org/>; rel="original timegate",
 <http://a.example.org/?version=20000915112826>
 ; rel="memento first"; datetime="Tue, 15 Sep 2000 11:28:26 GMT",
 <http://a.example.org/?version=20100120093433>
 ; rel="memento last"; datetime="Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:34:33 GMT",
 <http://a.example.org/?version=all&style=timemap>
 ; rel="timemap"; type="application/link-format"
 
Cheers

Herbert


  <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://mementoweb.org/ns#memento">
   
<rdfs:label>memento relation type</rdfs:label>
   
<rdfs:comment>The memento relation type is used to point from a TimeGate or a Memento for an Original Resource, as well as from the Original Resource itself, to a Memento for the Original
      Resource.
</rdfs:comment>
   
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://mementoweb.org/ns#Memento" />
   
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://mementoweb.org/ns#TimeGate" />
   
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://mementoweb.org/ns#OriginalResource" />
   
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://mementoweb.org/ns#Memento" />
   
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/terms/isVersionOf" />
   
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://mementoweb.org/ns"/>
   
<rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7089.txt" />
   
<rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml" />
 
</rdf:Property>


This implies a Memento can point to another Memento (?) – can you explain that particular scenario some more (ie, when someone would do that)?  I didn’t realize that was possible.


Thanks!

Bethany

Aaron Coburn

unread,
Nov 3, 2017, 12:08:29 PM11/3/17
to memen...@googlegroups.com, Bethany Seeger
I really like what you have proposed here. My only suggestion is that, while memento:memento-datetime is a perfectly legitimate RDF property name, most newer ontologies use camel case for such multi-word names. So might memento:mementoDatetime be a better term for this property?

Regards,
Aaron
http://mementoweb.org/ns.rdf <http://mementoweb.org/ns.rdf>
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF/Fedora+Repository+Home <https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF/Fedora+Repository+Home>


--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
memento-dev...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.







--
Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

==






--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
memento-dev...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.









--
Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

==









--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
memento-dev...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.









--
Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

==


--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
memento-dev...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.

Herbert Van de Sompel

unread,
Nov 3, 2017, 12:11:37 PM11/3/17
to memen...@googlegroups.com, Bethany Seeger, Herbert Van de Sompel
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Aaron Coburn <aco...@amherst.edu> wrote:
I really like what you have proposed here. My only suggestion is that, while memento:memento-datetime is a perfectly legitimate RDF property name, most newer ontologies use camel case for such multi-word names. So might memento:mementoDatetime be a better term for this property?



So, I used exactly the same property names as in RFC7089, i.e. "original", "memento", etc. . I guess that's why I also picked "memento-datetime". I am OK going with mementoDatetime if that's more contemporary.

Anyone else have ideas on this?

Cheers

Herbert
 
    memento-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit









    --
    Herbert Van de Sompel
    Digital Library Research & Prototyping
    Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
    http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
    http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

    ==


    --

    ---
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
    memento-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit












    --
    Herbert Van de Sompel
    Digital Library Research & Prototyping
    Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
    http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
    http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

    ==


    --

    ---
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memento-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Michael Nelson

unread,
Nov 3, 2017, 12:17:04 PM11/3/17
to memen...@googlegroups.com, Bethany Seeger, Herbert Van de Sompel

And keeping in mind if/when describing requests, you'll need to decide re:
Accept-Datetime vs. acceptDatetime

regards,

Michael
>     For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Memento Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
> to memento-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Herbert Van de Sompel
> Digital Library Research & Prototyping
> Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
> http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
> http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126
>
> ==
>
> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento
> Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
> memento-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

----
Michael L. Nelson m...@cs.odu.edu http://www.cs.odu.edu/~mln/
Dept of Computer Science, Old Dominion University, Norfolk VA 23529
+1 757 683 6393 +1 757 683 4900 (f)

Herbert Van de Sompel

unread,
Nov 4, 2017, 5:05:24 PM11/4/17
to memen...@googlegroups.com, Herbert Van de Sompel
hi all,

* I changed memento-datetime to mementoDatetime.

* I got some help to use OWL to express the following:

On the condition that there is an "original" link between a Memento and an OriginalResource, the following holds: 
<mem:Memento ont:isSameWorkAs mem:OriginalResource>. 
It's the weird stuff in the ontology with the #Y and owl:onProperty and owl:someValuesFrom.

* There are now 3 versions available:
- http://mementoweb.org/ns.rdf
- http://mementoweb.org/ns.ttl
- http://mementoweb.org/ns.jsonld

Early next week we will set up content negotiation with http://mementoweb.org/ns and make sure all mime types etc are correct.

Cheers

Herbert

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Aaron Coburn <aco...@amherst.edu> wrote:
    memento-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit









    --
    Herbert Van de Sompel
    Digital Library Research & Prototyping
    Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
    http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
    http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

    ==


    --

    ---
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
    memento-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit












    --
    Herbert Van de Sompel
    Digital Library Research & Prototyping
    Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
    http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
    http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

    ==


    --

    ---
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memento-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Herbert Van de Sompel

unread,
Nov 6, 2017, 5:50:29 PM11/6/17
to Aaron Coburn, memen...@googlegroups.com, Herbert Van de Sompel
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Aaron Coburn <aco...@amherst.edu> wrote:
Hi,

Just a very small issue: I noticed that the Turtle representation has a curly quote (line 99), which causes an RDF parser to fail.


I used RDF Distiller, see http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller?command=serialize . I t did indeed return problems but the ones I found were related to the statements that were introduced to express:

       On the condition that there is an "original" link between a Memento and an OriginalResource, the following holds:
       <mem:Memento ont:isSameWorkAs mem:OriginalResource>

I have, for now, removed all those statements from all serializations and will look further into it. RDF Distiller says all is OK now.

Cheers

herbert
 
Thanks,
Aaron



On 11/4/17, 5:05 PM, "memen...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Herbert Van de Sompel" <memen...@googlegroups.com on behalf of hvd...@gmail.com> wrote:

    hi all,


    * I changed memento-datetime to mementoDatetime.


    * I got some help to use OWL to express the following:


    On the condition that there is an "original" link between a Memento and an OriginalResource, the following holds:
    <mem:Memento ont:isSameWorkAs mem:OriginalResource>.
    It's the weird stuff in the ontology with the #Y and owl:onProperty and owl:someValuesFrom.


    * There are now 3 versions available:

    - http://mementoweb.org/ns.rdf
    - http://mementoweb.org/ns.ttl
    - http://mementoweb.org/ns.jsonld

    Early next week we will set up content negotiation with
    http://mementoweb.org/ns <http://mementoweb.org/ns> and make sure all mime types etc are correct.



        One suggestion in the above GitHub issue is to define Memento terms in the LDP namespace. However, it would seem that the most logical namespace for the following terms would be in a Memento ontology:
        * memento:OriginalResource
        * memento:TimeMap
        * memento:Memento
        * memento:TimeGate

        In the short-term, we may need to define the terms in the Fedora ontology... but that would hopefully be a stop-gap measure.









        I worked on a Memento ontology. The first stab is at


        http://mementoweb.org/ns.rdf <http://mementoweb.org/ns.rdf>


        Feedback very welcome. I left an open issue in a comment in the ontology doc.


        We will eventually put RDF/XML, Turtle, and maybe JSON-LD up there and support content negotiation with
        http://mementoweb.org/ns



        Cheers


        Herbert




        Assuming the need for defining the above terms in an RDF ontology, I would like to ask this group's opinion on where those terms should live and if there is interest in collaborating in moving that process forward.


        Best regards,
        Andrew

        On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 8:23:56 AM UTC-4, herbert wrote:

        On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:29 PM, <bse...@amherst.edu> wrote:

        Hello Herbert,




        Just to make sure I understand the question correctly:


        As per RFC7089, Memento TimeMap information is shared using the application/link-format MIME type, not an RDF serialization, see




        But I assume that you are referring to the internal representation of TimeMap information (URI-R, URI-G, URI-Ms, datetime, mime type, ...) in RDF, to be used in a LDP Container? And that information would then be rendered as application/link-format when
         it is requested by a Memento client?









        Thanks for your response.


        Yes, you understand my question correctly. This is more about the internal structure, which will be RDF.  We will still return the 'application/link-format' MIME type format on a request for TimeMap information.  I'm wondering if folks have done this before
         and what ontologies they may used to represent that data (internally).









        Got it. Early on in the memento work, we actually had an RDF "track" too. But that never made it into the RFC. Robert Sanderson who was still on my team then did some work on that. I will ping him to see whether that work might still be around somewhere,
         and, if so, whether it would still be relevant today. I will keep you posted. Or maybe Rob sees this message.


        BTW, I also noticed that the W3C Time Ontology made it to proposed recommendation level, see
    https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/ That might be relevant in this case too.


        Cheers


        Herbert




        Best,
        Bethany


        Cheers


        Herbert








        Best regards,
        Bethany


        [1]






        --

        ---
        You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
        To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
        memento-dev...@googlegroups.com.
        For more options, visit









        --
        Herbert Van de Sompel
        Digital Library Research & Prototyping
        Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
        http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/



        ==






        --

        ---
        You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
        To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
        memento-dev...@googlegroups.com.
        For more options, visit











        --
        Herbert Van de Sompel
        Digital Library Research & Prototyping
        Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
        http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/



        ==









        --

        ---
        You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
        To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to










        --
        Herbert Van de Sompel
        Digital Library Research & Prototyping
        Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
        http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/



        ==


        --

        ---
        You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
        To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to













        --
        Herbert Van de Sompel
        Digital Library Research & Prototyping
        Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
        http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/



        ==


        --

        ---
        You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
        To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

        For more options, visit
    https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.


    --

    ---
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

    For more options, visit
    https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.









    --
    Herbert Van de Sompel
    Digital Library Research & Prototyping
    Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
    http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
    http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

    ==

    --

    ---
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memento Development" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
    memento-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





--
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages