Hi Bernard
Glad to hear I¹m finally making sense to someone... :-/
What you said. Only additions would be:
The first URI is used in RDF descriptions of the thing, that I get for example
at http://example.org/resource/foo.rdf
For completeness: and / or in rdfa at
Hi.
On 18 Oct 2011, at 10:57, Michael Smethurst wrote:
Hi Bernard
Glad to hear I’m finally making sense to someone... :-/
I think I might be still with you ;-)
And finding the discussion very helpful - thanks.
And I'm not disagreeing - I have lots of concerns about how we do things, as we
Hi Michael,
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 10:57 +0100, Michael Smethurst wrote:
All of the problems mentioned in this thread could be solved with the
addition of a *generic* information resource URI that does the conneg
separately from the 303. Target the *generic* information resource in
your links
On 10/18/11 1:53 AM, Michael Smethurst wrote:
Hi Richard
(Again top post courtesy of webmail. sorry)
I'm saying dbpedia is missing the concept of a *generic* information
resource URI and it's that URI that should show up in the address bar
and be used in link targets. Ignoring the linked
Can someone remind me why people are using 303 at all, as opposed to
hash URIs in the #_ or #it pattern?
I've been trying to make a compelling case for 303 over hash, without
much success.
What would be most valuable is war stories, especially ones that
answer questions that have been left
On 18/10/2011 11:30, Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
Hi.
On 18 Oct 2011, at 10:57, Michael Smethurst wrote:
Hi Bernard
Glad to hear I¹m finally making sense to someone... :-/
I think I might be still with you ;-)
And finding the discussion very helpful - thanks.
And I'm
On 18/10/2011 12:26, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 10:57 +0100, Michael Smethurst wrote:
All of the problems mentioned in this thread could be solved with the
addition of a *generic* information resource URI that does the conneg
On 18 Oct 2011, at 15:16, Michael Smethurst wrote:
On 18/10/2011 12:26, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 10:57 +0100, Michael Smethurst wrote:
All of the problems mentioned in this thread could be solved with the
addition of a
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 15:16 +0100, Michael Smethurst wrote:
On 18/10/2011 12:26, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 10:57 +0100, Michael Smethurst wrote:
All of the problems mentioned in this thread could be solved with the
Wow, this is new information for me that the redirect-to-hash issue
would bear on this question, so this is interesting.
However I must be dense since I don't see how it applies. The scenario
I'm talking about is: I want an RDF URI for something. I mint a URI
A#it, publish a document at A
On 10/18/11 11:20 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
Wow, this is new information for me that the redirect-to-hash issue
would bear on this question, so this is interesting.
However I must be dense since I don't see how it applies. The scenario
I'm talking about is: I want an RDF URI for something. I
I don't seem to be doing a such good job at lurking but I'd thought the current
argument against fragment ids was you always get a 200 (so long as the
information resource they hang off exists). So:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006m86d#teddybearsandtrainsets
returns a 200 but that
On 10/18/11 10:56 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
But if we do want linked data to be adopted more generally and not confined
to the lab then we do need publishing guidelines that work fornormal
sites andnormal users. I think that means following the patterns of
data.gov.uk and the rest is
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Michael Smethurst
michael.smethu...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
I don't seem to be doing a such good job at lurking but I'd thought the
current argument against fragment ids was you always get a 200 (so long as
the information resource they hang off exists). So:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 10/18/11 11:20 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
Wow, this is new information for me that the redirect-to-hash issue
would bear on this question, so this is interesting.
However I must be dense since I don't see how it
I'm not a massive fan of the 303 but I do think some of the inconvenience
problems go away (at least for consumers and publishers, if not for source
developers) if you separate out the 303 nir uri generic ir uri (which is not
content negotiation) from the generic ir uri ir representations
On 10/18/11 1:49 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 10/18/11 11:20 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
Wow, this is new information for me that the redirect-to-hash issue
would bear on this question, so this is interesting.
Hi Jonathan,
It is not my understanding that Linked Data regards Hash URIs as a Bad Thing.
On the contrary - they have been an accepted way of doing things for a while:
http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#choosing
and now
http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/#htoc14
both present them as alternatives,
18 matches
Mail list logo
