Point taken Pat but I have been in the same ring as you for many
years, but to progress the Web can't we just take our hands off
the wheel, let it go where it wants. (Not that I have any influence,
and realistically you neither Pat). I'm now just back from a
sabbatical, but right now would
we are looking forward to make an OWL ontology database as a mirror of a
relational database for an upcoming social network semantic website is it a
good decision to make?
actually we can go for three options:
1. complete owl database, no relational db
2. owl mirror of relational db
3. only
Semantic Web Developers needed
We are looking to hire one or more developers to work on a set of software
tools for describing images using RDFa. We have a beta version near an early
release and need developers to add to our team.
We are looking for the following skills: Java, GWT, JSP, MySQL,
we are looking forward to make an OWL ontology database as a mirror of a
relational database for an upcoming social network semantic website is it a
good decision to make?
actually we can go for three options:
1. complete owl database, no relational db
2. owl mirror of relational db
3. only
On 19 Jun 2011, at 06:05, Pat Hayes wrote:
Really (sorry to keep raining on the parade, but) it is not as simple as
this. Look, it is indeed easy to not bother distinguishing male from female
dogs. One simply talks of dogs without mentioning gender, and there is a lot
that can be said
Dear colleagues,
We're conducting some research into the current use of blank nodes in
Linked Data publishing, and we need your help.
We would like to get a general impression of the intent of publishers
when using blank-nodes in their RDF data. Along these lines, we drafted
a short survey
Semantic Web Developers needed
We are looking to hire one or more developers to work on a set of software
tools
for describing images using RDFa. We have a beta version near an early
release and
need developers to add to our team.
We are looking for the following skills: Java, GWT, JSP,
Dear colleagues,
We're conducting some research into the current use of blank nodes in
Linked Data publishing, and we need your help.
We would like to get a general impression of the intent of publishers
when using blank-nodes in their RDF data. Along these lines, we drafted
a short survey
On 6/19/11 7:43 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
Point taken Pat but I have been in the same ring as you for many
years, but to progress the Web can't we just take our hands off
the wheel, let it go where it wants. (Not that I have any influence,
and realistically you neither Pat). I'm now just back
Hi Hugh,
By the way, as is well-known I think, a lot of people use and therefore must
be happy with URIs that are not Range-14 compliant, such as
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema .
Your general point that there is non-compliant data out there that
people are still able to make use of is
On 19 Jun 2011, at 13:05, Hugh Glaser wrote:
A step too far?
Hi.
I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia), and
it would break and be unfixable if the sources didn't do 303 or #.
Plenty of people saying they
On 6/19/11 12:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
A step too far?
Hi.
I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia), and it
would break and be unfixable if the sources didn't do 303 or #.
Plenty of people saying they can't express
On 19 Jun 2011, at 14:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Er. we use it :-)
The problem with this whole Linked Data thing is that its truly Ninja tech.
The killer conductor of value is the LINK. This lethal weapon applies to all
dimensions of the Web:
1. Information Space
2. Data Space
3.
On 6/18/11 6:58 AM, Aliabbas Petiwala wrote:
we are looking forward to make an OWL ontology database as a mirror of
a relational database for an upcoming social network semantic website
is it a good decision to make?
actually we can go for three options:
1. complete owl database, no
Thanks Henry.
Just to be clear on one point:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 12:44, Henry Story wrote:
snip /
When we help people publish, it really is tough to engage them long enough
to care about the complex issues, and they often get it wrong - I am engaged
with quite a few people who are now
On 12 Jun 2011, at 14:40, Danny Ayers wrote:
[snip]
Aside from containing a different bunch of bits because of the
encoding, sasha-photo.jpg could be a lossy-compressed version of
sasha-photo.gif, containing less pixel information yet sharing many
characteristics.
All ok so far..?
If
On 19 Jun 2011, at 13:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/19/11 12:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
A step too far?
Hi.
I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia),
and it would break and be unfixable if the sources didn't
particular confusion is so destructive. Unlike the dogs-vs-bitches case,
the difference between the document and its topic, the thing, is that one is
ABOUT the other. This is not simply a matter of ignoring some
Could it be exactly the other way around? that documents and things
described in
Nathan wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to
listen as more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based on
schema.org) pop up never knowing there was this problem... (not in
Absolutely, Pat. Well said.
This is really important.
Can we please stop the madness of confusing things with documents about them
and do what we want to do cleanly and in an efficient way.
Tim
On 2011-06 -19, at 00:05, Pat Hayes wrote:
Really (sorry to keep raining on the parade, but) it is
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to listen as
more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based on schema.org) pop up
never knowing there was this problem... (not in general. of course there is
in
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:58, Nathan wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to listen
as more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based on schema.org)
pop up never
On 19 June 2011 12:37, Henry Story henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote:
[snip pat]
The way to do this is to build applications where this thing matters. So for
example in the social web we could build
a slightly more evolved like protocol/ontology, which would be
decentralised for one, but would
On 19 Jun 2011, at 19:44, Danny Ayers wrote:
I am of the view that this has been discussed to death, and that any mailing
list that discusses this is short of real things to do.
I confess to talking bollocks when I should be coding.
yeah, me too. Though now you folks managed to get me
I thought forever that if we see iniquities we are duty-bound to stand
in the way.
But that don't seem to change anything.
Let the crap rain forth, if you really need to make sense of it the
blokes on this list will do it.
Activity is GOOD, no matter how idiotic.
Decisions made on very
Only personal Henry, but have you tried the Myers-Briggs thing - I
think you used to be classic INTP/INTF - but once you got WebID in
your sails it's very different. These things don't really allow for
change.
Only slightly off-topic, very relevant here, need to pin down WebID in
a sense my dogs
Danny Ayers wrote:
I feel very guilty being in threads like this. Shit fuck smarter people than
me.
Just minor, and I can hardly talk as I swear most often in different
settings, but I am a little surprised to see this language around here.
I quite like having an arena where these words
On 6/19/11 1:39 PM, Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 14:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Er. we use it :-)
The problem with this whole Linked Data thing is that its truly Ninja tech.
The killer conductor of value is the LINK. This lethal weapon applies to all
dimensions of the Web:
1.
On 6/19/11 2:26 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 13:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/19/11 12:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
A step too far?
Hi.
I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia), and it
would break and
On 6/19/11 5:56 PM, Nathan wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to
listen as more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based on
schema.org) pop up never knowing there was this
On 6/19/11 6:36 PM, Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:58, Nathan wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to listen as
more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff
+1 to Netlogo!
Regards,
Dave
On Jun 19, 2011, at 18:52, John Erickson wrote:
Henry Story asked...
Perhaps a more scientific way to express this is within the language of
self-organising systems. There is a lot of research there which is relevant
to us.
On 19 June 2011 20:42, Henry Story henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 20:15, Danny Ayers wrote:
Only personal Henry, but have you tried the Myers-Briggs thing - I
think you used to be classic INTP/INTF - but once you got WebID in
your sails it's very different. These things
33 matches
Mail list logo
