First Call for Industry Track
==
The 13th International Semantic Web Conference
http://iswc2014.semanticweb.org/
19-23 October 2014, Riva del Garda, Trento, Italy
==
Call for Papers - Intelligent Exploration of Semantic Data (IESD'14)
workshop at ISWC 2014
* The 3rd International workshop on Intelligent Exploration of Semantic Data
(IESD'14) *
http://iesd14.wordpress.com/
International Workshop at ISWC 2014, Riva del Garda, Italy.
19/20 October 2014
On 2014-04-28 22:58, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:
Hi Frans,
According to the creator of the tool on Twitter
(https://twitter.com/JoshData/)/, he does not have any plan at the
moment to fix the issue.
Yes, after writing him (Josh Tauberer) he explained that the validator
broke after an upgrade of
A message from my own sector...
http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/net-neutrality-and-the-future-of-museums-online/
Dominic
From: Daniel Berger danielarthurber...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, May 1, 2014 at 3:42 PM
Subject: Fwd: Eilat Eilot Green Energy 2014
To: todayinene...@eia.gov
Dear Sirs,
Please make this work part of President Obama's sustainable and renewable
energy plans and policies.
This work will give
I should have said this in reply to Frans' original mail - there's a
list of validators on the W3C Sem Web wiki, see
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Category:Validator
That's pulled from the more general list of tools
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Tools
There are recent entries on that wiki so
Phil,
AFAIK, none of the validators on that list take large enough user
input both as RDF/XML and Turtle, as rdfabout.com used to. That is why
it's sad to see it go.
I think it is also safe to say that W3C's own validator is pretty
outdated and useless because of the same reason:
I agree with what you say Martynas. Josh's validator was one I used a
lot and I too am sad to see it go.
The W3C validator is indeed rather old, only does RDF/XML etc. - we know
and we'd love to be able to offer a super-dooper Rolls Royce validator.
Just one thing's stopping us... take your
The W3C Validator is also obsolete because it does not read Turtle. It
only reads RDF/XML, which IMO should be discouraged.
David
On 05/06/2014 11:12 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
Phil,
AFAIK, none of the validators on that list take large enough user
input both as RDF/XML and Turtle, as
Phil, if you could add my distiller http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller,
and the Structured Data Linter http://linter-structured-data.org/ they would
serve a couple of purposes. The RDF distiller processes pretty much every RDF
variant, and the distiller also validates against the schema.org,
I believe Gregg meant: http://linter.structured-data.org/
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Gregg Kellogg gr...@greggkellogg.net wrote:
Phil, if you could add my distiller http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller,
and the Structured Data Linter http://linter-structured-data.org/ they
would serve
On May 6, 2014, at 5:58 PM, John Erickson olyerick...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe Gregg meant: http://linter.structured-data.org/
+1, thanks!
Gregg
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Gregg Kellogg gr...@greggkellogg.net wrote:
Phil, if you could add my distiller
On 5/6/14 11:05 AM, Phil Archer wrote:
I should have said this in reply to Frans' original mail - there's a
list of validators on the W3C Sem Web wiki, see
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Category:Validator
That's pulled from the more general list of tools
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Tools
This is for a research system evaluation. Please take 5 - 10 minutes to
give your feedback on selecting the better system summary for RDF
entities. These summaries are created on top of DBpedia entity
descriptions. You have to select the better summary for each entity.
Please participate in the
Hmm.
Do you know Laurie Anderson? She asks a similar question.
http://www.metrolyrics.com/smoke-rings-lyrics-laurie-anderson.html
-Alan
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:35 PM, kalpagunara...@gmail.com wrote:
This is for a research system evaluation. Please take 5 - 10 minutes to
give your feedback
Or to be a bit less opaque: Saying one is a better summary than the other
would grant that they are summaries. It appeared to me, however, that
neither satisfies the criteria for being a summary.
-Alan
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Alan Ruttenberg alanruttenb...@gmail.comwrote:
Hmm.
Do you
16 matches
Mail list logo
