Hi all,
I added a few known data browsers that can work with ISWC 2010 data
[1]. If you know other live demos that can browse/visualize the
dataset, please expand the list, or let me know.
[1]
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote:
Not necessarily. If you take your ex:isDescribedBy predicate and add
that to a triple store where the non-Information-Resource resources are
identified using hash URIs, then the SPARQL query is just:
DESCRIBE uri ?res
+1 indeed. Content-Location has definitely been overlooked. During
conneg, it is used to differ between a resource and its
representation(s), which are obviously different resources (well, not
necessarily the same). This distinction could certainly be enough to
remove the fundamental need for
Hi Toby!
For your information, the term EON is also used as the acronym of the
International Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools, an (almost-)
yearly event that exists since 2002. See [1] for the proceedings of the
first EON workshop. It would probably not be advisable to reuse the
On Sunday 07 November 2010, Michael Schneider wrote:
For your information, the term EON is also used as the acronym ...
Not to mention these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eon
(So my first association was it's an event of E.ON, the energy company ;) )
Jörn
Niklas,
In general I am supportive of your and Ian's thinking. 200 OK with
Content-Location might work.
However, three points from my perspective:
1) debating fundamental issues like this is very destabilising for those
of us looking to expand the LOD community and introduce new people and
On 11/5/10 3:34 AM, Egon Willighagen wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
As a best practice, common use of these predicates would increase
navigability, link density, and overall cohesiveness of the burgeoning Web
of Linked Data. It
Hi John!
I understand your points. I also don't think that 303 is a poor
solution in any fundamental way. In fact, given the use-case you
described, having a stable URI which delegates to the current
location is perfectly fine, and in many cases preferable to the
alternative (demanding
Hi John
Your points are good ones and some care should certainly be taken in how a
possible 200-with-content-location option should be presented to the 'outside
world'.
1) the public-lod forum is mostly aimed at practitioners, so hopefully not too
many new LODers will have been alarmed by the
Hi Kingsley,
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Seen this mail kinda late, hence late response. Some examples:
No worries!
Links:
1. http://goo.gl/MG5iS -- shows a descriptor page, link/, and Link
headers putting wdrs:describedBy to use
2.
On 11/7/10 10:07 AM, John Sheridan wrote:
Niklas,
In general I am supportive of your and Ian's thinking. 200 OK with
Content-Location might work.
However, three points from my perspective:
1) debating fundamental issues like this is very destabilising for those
of us looking to expand the LOD
On 11/7/10 11:17 AM, Bill Roberts wrote:
Hi John
Your points are good ones and some care should certainly be taken in how a
possible 200-with-content-location option should be presented to the 'outside
world'.
1) the public-lod forum is mostly aimed at practitioners, so hopefully not too
I share John's unease here. And I remain uneasy about the 200 C-L solution.
I know I sound like a fundamentalist in a discussion where we're trying
to find a practical, workable solution, but is a description of a toucan
a representation of a toucan? IMO, it's not. Sure, one can imagine an
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Phil Archer ph...@w3.org wrote:
I share John's unease here. And I remain uneasy about the 200 C-L solution.
I know I sound like a fundamentalist in a discussion where we're trying to
find a practical, workable solution, but is a description of a toucan a
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:26:15 +0100
Michael Schneider schn...@fzi.de wrote:
For your information, the term EON is also used as the acronym of
the International Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools,
an (almost-) yearly event that exists since 2002. See [1] for the
proceedings of the
Is there some reason not to use LODE?
http://linkedevents.org/ontology/
-- Rob Sanderson
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:26:15 +0100
Michael Schneider schn...@fzi.de wrote:
For your information, the term EON is also used as the
On 11/7/10 2:35 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
I share John's unease here. And I remain uneasy about the 200 C-L
solution.
I know I sound like a fundamentalist in a discussion where we're
trying to find a practical, workable solution, but is a description of
a toucan a representation of a toucan?
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:50:58 -0700
Robert Sanderson azarot...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there some reason not to use LODE?
http://linkedevents.org/ontology/
A few, though they could possibly be addressed by a revision of LODE:
1. lode:Event appears to be restricted to events which have already
How to present to the outside world?
In fact, perhaps why are we doing this?
People *are* doing conneg and returning 200 rdf right now, and many of us
expect that this will continue and even increase, despite any
instructions/recommendations to the contrary from the LOD community.
So it is
I was wondering if an example might help me understand this better.
I have currently been linking between entities and the RDF that describes
them using foaf:topic and foaf:page
If I understand this correctly, I would continue to use foaf:topic to point
from the RDF page to the entities it
Thank all for providing valuable inputs. Now the list [1] is extended with
* Bibliographic Data (Note that all authors are linked to DBLP)
* ISWC Explorer by fluid Operations, based on Information Workbench
* More Browsers: Disco, Marbles, SIOC RDF Browser, Zitgist, Explorator
[1]
Hi Phil!
Phil Archer wrote:
I know I sound like a fundamentalist in a discussion where we're trying
to find a practical, workable solution, but is a description of a toucan
a representation of a toucan? IMO, it's not. Sure, one can imagine an
HTTP response returning a very rich data stream
Is there some reason not to use LODE?
http://linkedevents.org/ontology/
Thanks for this suggestion Rob ;-)
Raphaël
--
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.tro...@eurecom.fr
Hello,
While the Consuming Linked Data workshop is running, we want to invite the
participants and everybody else who is interested in Linked Data to a Linked
Data gathering in the evening. We will gather at The Bund Brewery, 11 Hankou
Lu, 8pm. If you want to eat before, there are a lot
Hi Ian,
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 10:59 +, Ian Davis wrote:
I have a question about http://thing-described-by.org/ - how does it
work when my description document describes multiple things? Really,
any RDF document that references more than one resource as a subject
or object can be
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 10:59 +, Ian Davis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:10 PM, David Booth da...@dbooth.org wrote:
2. only one description can be linked from the
toucan's URI
True, but that's far better than zero, if you only
have the toucan URI and it returns 404!
It could
Hi David,
David Booth wrote:
There are millions of people that use URIs to identify billions of web
pages, and the vast majority have never heard of RDF.
Most of these millions haven't heard of, nor care about, the HTML
contained in the web page either. Thus, saying that millions of people
use
27 matches
Mail list logo
