On 25/03/12 19:24, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Tim,
Alternatively, why not use the existing Link: header? Then we end up
with the ability to express the same :describedby relation in three
places
Which is, of course, in the now-submitted proposal.
Dave
Tim,
On 25 Mar 2012, at 20:26, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
For example, To take an arbitrary one of the trillions out there, what does
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2372108pageno=11
identify, there being no RDF in it?
What can I possibly do with that URI if the
Giovanni,
I received an offline email with a similar suggestion. It would be really
really useful if you or someone could submit a Change Proposal to
www-...@w3.org through the process described at [1] which basically said
something like:
The representation from a probe URI is a URI
Hi Tim,
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Tim Berners-Lee ti...@w3.org wrote:
...
For example, To take an arbitrary one of the trillions out there, what does
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2372108pageno=11
identify, there being no RDF in it?
What can I possibly do
Giovanni,
So the proposal is to forget immediately the whole distinction and
anything else than a simple 200:
* Only return 200,
* As a default, clients known that they're dealing with Non IR
* if you really have to annotate some IR for very low lever purposes
then you do it anyway with
THE 9TH SUMMER SCHOOL ON ONTOLOGY ENGINEERING AND THE SEMANTIC WEB (SSSW 2012)
8-14 July, 2012, Cercedilla, near Madrid, Spain.
http://sssw.org/2012
Applications to attend the summer school are open until the 30 March 2012. See
http://sssw.org/2012/how-to-apply/ for details.
The groundbreaking
Hi David,
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:50 PM, David Wood da...@3roundstones.com wrote:
Hi David,
*sigh*. I said recently that I would rather chew my arm off than re-engage
with http-range-14. Apparently I have very little self control.
On Mar 25, 2012, at 11:54, David Booth wrote:
Jeni,
On 3/26/12 3:57 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On 25/03/12 19:24, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Tim,
Alternatively, why not use the existing Link: header? Then we end up
with the ability to express the same :describedby relation in three
places
Which is, of course, in the now-submitted proposal.
Dave
On 26 March 2012 08:51, Giovanni Tummarello
giovanni.tummare...@deri.org wrote:
Is annotating IRs is of *any value practical and role today* ?
Anything of value and core interest to wikipedia, imdb, bestbuy, bbc,
geonames, rottentomatoes, lastfm, facebook, whatever. is a NIR.
We are
Jonathan,
A few years ago I had a conversation with the folks at Metaweb about
issues they were having with Linked Data deployment and exploitation.
During that conversation they brought to my attention the fact that a
number of widely used frameworks simply fault on on HTTP 303. Basically,
On 26 March 2012 13:06, Michael Hopwood mich...@editeur.org wrote:
Hi Dan, Giovanni,
Thank you for this dialogue - I've been following this thread (or trying to!)
for some days now and wondering where is the data model in all this?.
At the point where Quite different notions of IR are
All
Like many others it seems, I had sworn to myself : nevermore HttpRange-14,
but I will also bite the bullet.
Here goes ... Sorry I've hard time to follow-up with whom said what with
all those entangled threads, so I answer to ideas more than to people.
There is no need for anyone to even talk
On 23 March 2012 15:35, Steve Harris steve.har...@garlik.com wrote:
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
Tom,
On 26 Mar 2012, at 16:05, Tom Heath wrote:
On 23 March 2012 15:35, Steve Harris steve.har...@garlik.com wrote:
I'm sure many people are just deeply bored of this discussion.
No offense intended to Jeni and others who are working hard on this,
but *amen*, with bells on!
One of the
Hi Hugh,
On Mar 26, 2012, at 11:49, Hugh Glaser wrote:
So What is Linked Data?
Only an academic would ask such a question ;)
I don't mean that as tongue-in-cheek as it sounds, but to point out that Linked
Data started, grew and evolved as a pragmatic application of technologies to
certain
Hi Jeni,
On 26 March 2012 16:47, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
Tom,
On 26 Mar 2012, at 16:05, Tom Heath wrote:
On 23 March 2012 15:35, Steve Harris steve.har...@garlik.com wrote:
I'm sure many people are just deeply bored of this discussion.
No offense intended to Jeni and
Hi Dave,
On 26 March 2012 16:51, Dave Reynolds d...@epimorphics.com wrote:
On 26/03/12 16:05, Tom Heath wrote:
On 23 March 2012 15:35, Steve Harrissteve.har...@garlik.com wrote:
On 23 Mar 2012, at 14:05, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
2012/3/23 Melvin Carvalhomelvincarva...@gmail.com:
I dont
On 3/26/12 11:49 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
So What is Linked Data?
And relatedly, Who Owns the Term Linked Data?
(If we used a URI for Linked Data, it might or might not be clearer.)
Of course most people think that What *I* think is Linked Data is Linked Data.
And by construction, if it is
On 3/26/12 12:02 PM, David Wood wrote:
Hi Hugh,
On Mar 26, 2012, at 11:49, Hugh Glaser wrote:
So What is Linked Data?
Only an academic would ask such a question ;)
I don't mean that as tongue-in-cheek as it sounds, but to point out that Linked
Data started, grew and evolved as a pragmatic
On 2012-03 -26, at 06:18, Leigh Dodds wrote:
I may be misreading you here, but I'm not against unambiguous
definition. My show what is actually broken comment (on twitter) was
essentially the same question as I've asked here before, and as Hugh
asked again recently: what applications
On 3/26/12 1:27 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2012-03 -26, at 06:18, Leigh Dodds wrote:
I may be misreading you here, but I'm not against unambiguous
definition. My show what is actually broken comment (on twitter) was
essentially the same question as I've asked here before, and as Hugh
asked
Hi Kingsley,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
...
Leigh,
Everything we've built in the Linked Data realm leverages the findings of
HttpRange-14 re. Name/Address (Reference/Access) disambiguation. Our Linked
Data clients adhere to these findings.
On 26 March 2012 16:49, Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
So What is Linked Data?
I think this can be defused:
'Linked Data' is the use of the Web standards to share documents that
encode structured data, typically but not necessarily using a graph
data model.
Considerations --- It's
On 26 March 2012 19:16, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
On 26 March 2012 16:49, Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
So What is Linked Data?
I think this can be defused:
'Linked Data' is the use of the Web standards to share documents that
encode structured data, typically but not
Hi,
a quote from the mission statement on the webdatacommons.org page:
More and more websites have started to embed structured data describing
products, people, organizations, places, events into their HTML pages. The Web
Data Commons project extracts this data from several billion web pages
On 3/26/12 2:09 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
...
Leigh,
Everything we've built in the Linked Data realm leverages the findings of
HttpRange-14 re. Name/Address (Reference/Access) disambiguation. Our Linked
On 3/26/12 2:16 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
I think this can be defused:
'Linked Data' is the use of the Web standards to share documents that
encode structured data, typically but not necessarily using a graph
data model.
TimBL's Linked Data meme isn't about sharing, solely. What about
whole
Hi all:
My example about rdfs:isDefinedBy remains, a majority of ontologies
constructed by folks who grok the fundamentals still don't include
rdfs:isDefinedBy relations. Thus, I've resorted to fixing those ontologies
when ingested instead of pinging the ontology authors. The same thing
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 3/26/12 2:09 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com
wrote:
...
Leigh,
Everything we've built in the Linked Data realm leverages the
hi all
the fact that many HTTP clients do not support 303 properly is new to me and
I retire my statement that we should leave everything as it is.
I have some questions about what would break to the supporters of the
change proprosals.
Missing bookmarkability of NIRs can be a feature also.
On 26 March 2012 17:49, Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
So What is Linked Data?
And relatedly, Who Owns the Term Linked Data?
(If we used a URI for Linked Data, it might or might not be clearer.)
Of course most people think that What *I* think is Linked Data is Linked
Data.
And by
See:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577281842851136290.html
The clock is ticking now and it seems Google will soon take over semantic web
technologies, or not?
With the new privacy universal agreement introduced at the beginning of March
this year by Google it was only
On 3/26/12 3:22 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 3/26/12 2:09 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com
wrote:
...
Leigh,
Everything we've built in
On 3/26/12 3:16 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
Hi all:
My example about rdfs:isDefinedBy remains, a majority of ontologies constructed by folks
who grok the fundamentals still don't include rdfs:isDefinedBy relations. Thus, I've
resorted to fixing those ontologies when ingested instead of pinging
On 3/26/12 3:53 PM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program wrote:
See:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577281842851136290.html
The clock is ticking now and it seems Google will soon take over
semantic web technologies, or not?
With the new privacy universal agreement introduced
On 26 March 2012 21:53, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program
metadataport...@yahoo.com wrote:
See:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577281842851136290.html
The clock is ticking now and it seems Google will soon take over semantic
web technologies, or not?
With the new
Hugh
here i share my recent experience with a big time (smart) tech
manager of a big time (smart) enterprises we're working on.
* He kept on telling us we're doing liked data, linked data is hot
* I tried to convince him that no.. really liked data is this insane
things that people should use
On 3/26/12 4:16 PM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
Hugh
here i share my recent experience with a big time (smart) tech
manager of a big time (smart) enterprises we're working on.
* He kept on telling us we're doing liked data, linked data is hot
* I tried to convince him that no.. really liked
Hi all,
On Mar 26, 2012, at 13:27, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2012-03 -26, at 06:18, Leigh Dodds wrote:
I may be misreading you here, but I'm not against unambiguous
definition. My show what is actually broken comment (on twitter) was
essentially the same question as I've asked here
Hugh
here i share my recent experience with a big time (smart) tech
manager of a big time (smart) enterprises we're working on.
* He kept on telling us we're doing liked data, linked data is hot
* I tried to convince him that no.. really liked data is this insane
things that people
On 2012-03 -25, at 14:06, Norman Gray wrote:
Tim, greetings.
On 2012 Mar 25, at 17:35, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
(Not useful to talk about NIRs. The web architecture does not. Now does
Jonathan's baseline, not HTTP Range-14. Never assume that what an IR is
about is not itself a IR.)
Well, I guess all the work I've been doing, in order to automatically create
traceability annotations for user-generated-content upon resources to support
resource recommendation of access control is going down the drain. At least I
was using WebIDs, all the traceability annotations could be
On 3/26/12 5:21 PM, Nuno Bettencourt wrote:
Well, I guess all the work I've been doing, in order to automatically
create traceability annotations for user-generated-content upon
resources to support resource recommendation of access control is
going down the drain.
Of course not.
At least I
Nuno,
This sounds like interesting work.
And good luck with it.
All in all I think there is a difference to large companies holding masses
of analytics and associated data to individuals having access to their own
self created data.
I think that commerce distorts things in several ways.
I think
Thanks David.
I don't think that anything you say disagrees with my post, it actually looks
like it supports it.
My question was a rhetorical device by which I tried to raise many of the
issues you provide opinion on.
Reading your message as carefully as I can, I cannot recognise it as refuting
On 26 March 2012 20:13, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 3/26/12 2:16 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
I think this can be defused:
'Linked Data' is the use of the Web standards to share documents that
encode structured data, typically but not necessarily using a graph
data model.
Could this 308 (Permanent Redirect) give us a way to cache a probe URI's
definition document location?
An issue people have with httpRange-14 is that 303 redirects can't be
cached. If we could agree to use a 308 response as a cache-able
alternative to 303, we could reduce server load and speed
On Mar 26, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2012-03 -26, at 06:18, Leigh Dodds wrote:
I may be misreading you here, but I'm not against unambiguous
definition. My show what is actually broken comment (on twitter) was
essentially the same question as I've asked here before,
48 matches
Mail list logo
