On 6/15/11 11:35 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
I have a few questions. See below.
On 14 Jun 2011, at 22:24, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/13/11 9:29 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Then you go on to say that it would be much better if it said:
id:
Do URIs have owners? I don't thing owner is the correct term. A
URI has an agent (person, group) who controls what it resolves to,
but I'm not sure you can own an identifier.
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-assignment
Cheers,
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
On 15 Jun 2011, at 12:35, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
ah, it's owned because the community agrees that is the way we work, it's not
a legal ownership. That was my confusion.
That's one side. There is a legal argument too. Gross oversimplification: You
can own URIs because you can own domain
On 15 Jun 2011, at 12:01, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
https://graph.facebook.com/kidehen#this
Would you agree that Facebook are the owners of this URI?
I would say they own the URI: https://graph.facebook.com/kidehen
I use that URI as the basis for a disambiguated URI in my data space, for
On 6/15/11 11:58 AM, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
Picking up on comment by Richard, but forking the thread
Would you agree that Facebook are the owners of this URI?
Do URIs have owners? I don't thing owner is the correct term. A URI
has an agent (person, group) who controls what it resolves
On 12 June 2011 23:05, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
All,
Facebook offers a data space (of the silo variety). Every Object has an
Address (URL) from which you can access its actual Representation in JSON
format.
Example using the URL: http://graph.facebook.com/kidehen:
{
On 13 June 2011 10:29, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 6/13/11 8:46 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
On 12 Jun 2011, at 22:05, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Example using the URL: http://graph.facebook.com/kidehen:
{
id: 605980750,
name: Kingsley Uyi Idehen,
first_name:
On 13 June 2011 07:52, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are saying
or how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try running
it past me again? Bear in mind that I do not accept your claim that a
description
I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme is a
burden on publishers for the sake of a handful of applications that wish
to refer to these information resources themselves, making them
unable to talk about Web pages using the Web description language RDF.
What about minting
I thought this might also be relevant for subscribers of these lists.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Martin Hepp martin.h...@ebusiness-unibw.org
Date: June 15, 2011 9:44:49 PM GMT+02:00
To: goodrelations-list goodrelati...@ebusiness-unibw.org
Subject: [goodrelations] Google bug: foaf:page
* [2011-06-14 08:55:09 -0700] Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us écrit:
] Well, you have got me confused. Are you saying here that it does
] in fact make sense to say that a description of the eiffel tower
] is 356M tall?
I'm just saying that things like this will be published because the
publisher is
On 6/15/11 2:11 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
If you think that's good, try this!
http://graph.facebook.com/kidehen?metadata=1
Yes, we did a while back when making the Facebook sponger cartridge :-)
BTW - Visit uriburner.com and then click on the FB button.
I don't use FB as avidly as Aldo, so
On 6/15/11 4:27 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
On 13 June 2011 07:52, Pat Hayespha...@ihmc.us wrote:
OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are saying or
how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try running it
past me again? Bear in mind that I do not
On 6/15/11 2:14 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
Chatted with Joe and Nathan about this some time back.
I think there as an argument that said you can get away with not using
the #this ... ill try and dig up the notes if you would like a pointer
Not in my data space re. Facebook URLs :-)
Awesome rant Richard!
I think this bit would work better live :
I want to tell the publishers of these web pages that they could join the web
of data just by adding a few @rels to some as, and a few @properties to
some spans, and a few @typeofs to some divs (or @itemtypes and
@itemprops).
On 14 June 2011 10:49, Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de wrote:
On 13 Jun 2011, at 20:51, David Booth wrote:
http://richard.cyganiak.de/
a foaf:Document;
dc:title Richard Cyganiak's homepage;
a foaf:Person;
foaf:name Richard Cyganiak;
owl:sameAs http://twitter.com/cygri;
On Jun 15, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Jason Borro wrote:
I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme is a burden on
publishers for the sake of a handful of applications that wish to refer to
these information resources themselves, making them unable to talk about
Web pages using
On 15 June 2011 18:30, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Boy, that is a humdinger of a non-sequiteur. Given that HTTP has flexibility,
it is OK to identify a description of a thing with the actual thing? To me
that sounds like saying, given that movies are projected, it is OK to say
that
On 16 June 2011 02:26, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing
it describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write
classical model theory to accommodate this classical use/mention error. You
might want to
...reviewing my Facebook acl:agent in my personal WACL:
http://presbrey.data.fm/.meta#me
http://uriburner.com/describe/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fpresbrey.data.fm%2F.meta%23me
seems to beg Facebook Graph sponger ;)
Adding hash keys do not exist (and/or aren't supported) at upstream
sources,
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Jason Borro ja...@openguid.net wrote:
Good luck preserving your mental model if you require webmasters to spell
Korzybski.
This is an odd comment. It's like saying good luck preserving your model of
TCP if you require network developers to know where Postel
21 matches
Mail list logo
