Do you really think that base your proposal on the usage on a Powder
annotation is a good idea?
Sorry, but IMHO HttpRange-14 is a good enough agreement.
Kind regards,
On 22 March 2012 21:21, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
Hi there,
Hopefully you're all aware that there's a Call
On 3/23/12 5:32 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
Do you really think that base your proposal on the usage on a Powder
annotation is a good idea?
Sorry, but IMHO HttpRange-14 is a good enough agreement.
+1
We don't solve anything by passing more work over to developers of user
agent
2012/3/23 Sergio Fernández sergio.fernan...@fundacionctic.org:
Do you really think that base your proposal on the usage on a Powder
annotation is a good idea?
Sorry, but IMHO HttpRange-14 is a good enough agreement.
yup performed brilliantly so far, nothing to say. Industry is flocking
to
2012/3/23 Giovanni Tummarello giovanni.tummare...@deri.org
2012/3/23 Sergio Fernández sergio.fernan...@fundacionctic.org:
Do you really think that base your proposal on the usage on a Powder
annotation is a good idea?
Sorry, but IMHO HttpRange-14 is a good enough agreement.
yup
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
* existing applications that assume that a 200 response is only given for an
information resource may make false inferences about what a probe URI
identifies (but this happens already, as people already publish data
2012/3/23 Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com:
I dont think, even the wildest optimist, could have predicted the success of
the current architecture (both pre and post HR14).
The votes of confidence are interesting to me, as I have not been
hearing them previously. It does appear we have a
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also pointed it out),
that, as shown by the Flickr and Jamendo examples, the real issue is
not an IR/NIR type distinction, but
On 23/03/12 14:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also pointed it out),
that, as shown by the Flickr and Jamendo examples, the real issue is
On 23 Mar 2012, at 14:05, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
2012/3/23 Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com:
I dont think, even the wildest optimist, could have predicted the success of
the current architecture (both pre and post HR14).
The votes of confidence are interesting to me, as I have not
On 3/23/12 10:05 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
2012/3/23 Melvin Carvalhomelvincarva...@gmail.com:
I dont think, even the wildest optimist, could have predicted the success of
the current architecture (both pre and post HR14).
The votes of confidence are interesting to me, as I have not been
On 3/23/12 11:35 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
On 23 Mar 2012, at 14:05, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
2012/3/23 Melvin Carvalhomelvincarva...@gmail.com:
I dont think, even the wildest optimist, could have predicted the success of
the current architecture (both pre and post HR14).
The votes of confidence
On 23/03/12 15:40, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 3/23/12 10:59 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On 23/03/12 14:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also
On 3/23/12 12:12 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
Thank you Jenny, Leigh, Dave and Ian and Jonathan.
I was quite excited about Jonathan's request to start with, but then decided
that the context for the decision was probably much the same as before, and so
there was unlikely to be much change.
I would
Hi all,
I noticed that there are general discussion about using the described by
relationship in 200 OK, here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ognNNOIcghga9ltQdoi-CvbNS8q-dOzJjhMutJ7_vZo/edit
I would like to point out that other than the 200OK and 303 See Other, we
also should consider the
On 3/23/12 12:26 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On 23/03/12 15:40, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 3/23/12 10:59 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On 23/03/12 14:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
I've
Thanks Kingsley,
I share your concern about change - it is never a good thing when things are
gestating, as they still are.
I would only differ with you in the sense that I think LD actually has stalled
(if it ever got out of second gear :-) )
We are many years down the track - LD is not such a
This looks like infinite regress to me.
You have U describedby V. You want to find the description V so
that you can figure out what U means. So you need to know what
content V refers to, so that you can obtain and read it.
According to the proposal, to do this, you dereference V, and need to
Jonathan,
I'm aiming here to clarify the proposal as if the points aren't clear from the
Change Proposal, we should reword it. Of course technical discussion of the
merits of the proposal should wait until it is submitted to www-tag, discussed
by the community and assessed by the TAG according
On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 16:12 +, Hugh Glaser wrote:
So my question here is to people who have built a real app that consumes LD,
by which I mean something in use every day by someone other than the builder
and their friends - preferably where someone paid you to do it.
***Would your
Thanks James.
Sorry, I don't count that as an App - it doesn't actually do anything useful
for a user.
(You may consider that unfair, but I did say sorry!)
In fact, I think your discussion illustrates the issue.
You don't like the RDF it defines (and it ain't pretty), but would it break
James,
On 23 Mar 2012, at 19:23, James Leigh wrote:
I am not saying everyone should care to distinguish them (real data will
always be dirty), but using the same identifier for both the person and
the document should not be the recommended approach.
Absolutely. Where in the Change Proposal
On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 19:49 +, Jeni Tennison wrote:
James,
On 23 Mar 2012, at 19:23, James Leigh wrote:
I am not saying everyone should care to distinguish them (real data will
always be dirty), but using the same identifier for both the person and
the document should not be the
James,
On 23 Mar 2012, at 20:24, James Leigh wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 19:49 +, Jeni Tennison wrote:
On 23 Mar 2012, at 19:23, James Leigh wrote:
I am not saying everyone should care to distinguish them (real data will
always be dirty), but using the same identifier for both the person
On 2012-03 -22, at 16:21, Jeni Tennison wrote:
[...]
Second, a 200 response to a probe URI no longer implies that the probe URI
identifies an information resource; instead, this can only be inferred if the
probe URI is the object of a ‘describedby’ relationship.
So for any arbitrary web
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Tim Berners-Lee ti...@w3.org wrote:
On 2012-03 -22, at 16:21, Jeni Tennison wrote:
[...]
Second, a 200 response to a probe URI no longer implies that the probe URI
identifies an information resource; instead, this can only be inferred if
the probe URI is
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
While there are instances of linked data websites using 303 redirections,
there are also many examples of people making statements about URIs
(particularly using HTML link relations, RDFa, microdata, and
Perhaps the issue could be reframed as how can the rest of us
compensate for the shortsightedness of publishers?.
For example, imagine a server that publishes a URI with this conflated
assertion:
http://example.org/Jane_Austen (200 OK)
http://example.org/Jane_Austen a http://schema.org/Person .
Hi Jeni,
Thanks for your response.
On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 21:42 +, Jeni Tennison wrote:
The big thing that *is* different under this proposal is that if you have an
HTML+RDFa 1.1 document like:
!DOCTYPE html
html
head
base href=http://example.org/me/
link rel=stylesheet
On 23 Mar 2012, at 22:42, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
While there are instances of linked data websites using 303 redirections,
there are also many examples of people making statements about URIs
(particularly using
On 3/23/12 1:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
Thanks Kingsley,
I share your concern about change - it is never a good thing when things are
gestating, as they still are.
I would only differ with you in the sense that I think LD actually has stalled
(if it ever got out of second gear :-) )
We are
On 3/23/12 6:42 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Jeni Tennisonj...@jenitennison.com wrote:
While there are instances of linked data websites using 303 redirections, there
are also many examples of people making statements about URIs (particularly
using HTML link
I am sympathetic, but...
On Mar 23, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On 23/03/12 14:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also
32 matches
Mail list logo
