Hi Bernard,
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Bernard Vatant
bernard.vat...@mondeca.com wrote:
Basically that's it. If this practice seems good from social and technical
viewpoint it could be a good idea to document it in a more formal way and
put it somewhare on the wiki. There has been a
On Jul 6, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
However, before I lose any more of my SW friends, let me say at
once that I am NOT arguing for this change to RDF.
so after hundreds of emails, I have to ask - what (the hell) defines
RDF?
Well, the current specs do. And they
On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:23 PM, David Booth wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote:
[ . . . ]
foaf:knows a rdf:Property .
Well we can dereference foaf:knows to find out what it means. This is
the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial
procedure we
should
On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2010-07-05, Pat Hayes wrote:
This objection strikes me as completely wrong-headed. Of course
literals are machine processable.
What precisely does Sampo as a plain literal mean to a computer?
Do give me the fullest semantics you can.
On Jul 7, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:11:19 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
The world doesn't have facts like that in it. Classes and properties
are intellectual constructs, not the stuff of reality. Hell, if a
particle can be a wave, then surely a class
On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote:
Without knowing the definition of foaf:Person, it's difficult to
conclude that foaf:Person is not a property. However, even without
knowing the definition of a literal, it
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:16:06 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
I would veto this option. To do this would be a lot more work than
not doing it; and it would greatly complicate the semantic
specification, which would have to keep track of this
'meaninglessness'.
Why would tools need to
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote:
Without knowing the definition of foaf:Person, it's difficult to
conclude that foaf:Person is not a
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 07:03:21 +0200
Ivan Herman i...@w3.org wrote:
http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/07/new_opportunities_for_linked_d.html
Not sure why my comment yesterday has still not shown up, but for the
benefit of these lists...
I've been supporting some of these technologies in my Perl modules
Sandro, all,
I created the wikipage as you suggested. It is sketchy and certainly a
bit biased towards my own opinion but I guess this will be improved as
the document extends.
Le 07/07/2010 05:01, Sandro Hawke a écrit :
Would anyone be willing to try to capture the results of this thread
On Jul 8, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:16:06 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
I would veto this option. To do this would be a lot more work than
not doing it; and it would greatly complicate the semantic
specification, which would have to keep track of
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 14:43 -0400, Adrian Walker wrote:
Hi Pat,
You wrote...
..how do we know, given some RDF, what semantic extensions are
appropriately to be used when interpreting it? That is a VERY good
question. This is something that RDF2 could most usefully tackle,...
A fairly
Apologies for cross posting
-
Dear all
So far semantic web search engines and semantic aggregation services have
been inserting datasets by hand or have been based on random walk like
crawls with no data completeness or freshness guarantees.
After quite some work, we are happy to
13 matches
Mail list logo
