a best practice. I just meant to
caution that named graphs may not *fully* solve the problem. But they
are the best starting point, IMO.
David Booth
Wow, that is strict, given that ISWC is clearly relevant to all of the
lists below.
David Booth
On 05/19/2016 11:24 AM, Phil Archer wrote:
Miel,
Thank you for including [CfP] - that's helpful and this is clearly a
relevant event. But you have sent this to
www-rdf-inter...@w3.org
www-rdf-lo
), or use JSON-LD Framing, which has not been
fully standardized, and has many missing features and bugs. I think
we need to work more on the Framing, so that RDF can be more than just
a publication format.
+1
I think that would be quite helpful.
David Booth
application with the specific serialization that it requires. All of
the major RDF tool sets have converters that can read one RDF
serialization and write another.
David Booth
On 09/03/2015 01:53 PM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
With due respect, I think it would be foolish to burn the bridges
updates, we will quietly thank RDF/XML for its
faithful service and mark it as deprecated.
David Booth
Hi Jeff,
This certainly sounds like something that others may want to use. Is it
on github? What license?
Thanks!
David Booth
On 09/03/2015 11:05 AM, Jeff Mixter wrote:
Frans,
I had the same problem a few months ago and wrote a very simple server
side Python script (using the rdflib
Hi John,
I can appreciate the value of RDF/XML for certain processing tasks, and
I'm okay with keeping RDF/XML alive as a *processing* format. My
suggestion to deprecate RDF/XML was intended to apply to its use as a
*publishing* format.
Thanks,
David Booth
On 09/03/2015 03:52 PM, John
everything Anzo now, so I don't know which Anzo has the faceted
browsing capability. :)
David Booth
On 01/25/2015 02:08 PM, Christian Morbidoni wrote:
Thank you all for the replies and the useful info.
I'll go trough all of them asap and will bother you again if I have some
question :-)
best
.
#
# Line 20: In this example there were no root classes, i.e.,
# classes whose instances never appear in the object position,
# but if there had been, then each would have been marked
# with an asterisk.
]]
David Booth
On 02/04/2015 03:49 PM, Michael F Uschold wrote:
Sorry, ignore priore email
On 08/22/2014 11:44 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
Dear LOD community,
I'm wondering whether there has been any research regarding the idea
of having URIs contain an actual URI, that would then resolve
information about what the linked dataset states about the input URI.
That is the technique used
Recommended reading would be Cool URIs for the Semantic Web:
http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/
In spite of the advice in that document, people can and sometimes do use
the same URI for both the real world entity (such as a zebra) and the
document that describes that zebra. Doing so may be
On 07/10/2014 10:42 PM, Mike Bergman wrote:
Hi All,
I have been looking for an ontology that organizes and describes
possible characteristics or attributes for common entity types, such as
what might be found in a key-value pair in Wikipedia infoboxes and such.
I don't know if this is quite
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
As an aside, whenever it is convenient to do so, I would strongly
suggest migrating from RDF/XML to Turtle as the default published RDF
format, for better public relations and human readability.
Historically, RDF/XML has caused quite a lot of misunderstanding of RDF
among software developers
usefulness. I don't
have a strong opinion on that.
David
peter
On 04/03/2014 03:12 PM, David Booth wrote:
First of all, my sincere apologies to Pat, Peter and the rest of the
readership for totally botching my last example, writing domain when
I meant range *and* explaining it wrong. Sorry
:
On Mar 31, 2014, at 10:31 AM, David Booth da...@dbooth.org wrote:
On 03/30/2014 03:13 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
[ , . . ]
What follows from knowing that
ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc . ?
Suppose you know this and you also know that
x ppp y .
Can you infer x rdf:type ccc? I presume not, since
On 03/30/2014 03:13 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
[ , . . ]
What follows from knowing that
ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc . ?
Suppose you know this and you also know that
x ppp y .
Can you infer x rdf:type ccc? I presume not, since the domain might
include other stuff outside ccc. So, what *can* be
On 12/05/2013 09:49 AM, Damian Steer wrote:
On 5 Dec 2013, at 13:52, Thomas Steiner to...@google.com wrote:
Dear Public-LOD,
Thank you all for your very helpful replies. Following your joint
arguments, owl:sameAs is _not_ an option then.
You could use dc:hasFormat to link them:
A related
Hi Michel,
On 12/05/2013 07:05 PM, Michel Dumontier wrote:
Hi all,
As you may know, Bio2RDF produces RDF dumps of its RDF datasets [1,2].
For each dataset, we generate a dataset description file (as per [3];
example [4]) that is in n-triples format, while the dataset is comprised
of one or
Hi Hugh,
A little correction and a further question . . .
On 11/23/2013 10:17 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
Pleasure.
Actually, I found this:
http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/3530/sparql-query-filtering-by-string
I said it is a pig’s breakfast because you never know what the RDF publisher
On 11/23/2013 12:21 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 23/11/13 17:01, David Booth wrote:
Hi Hugh,
A little correction and a further question . . .
On 11/23/2013 10:17 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
Pleasure.
Actually, I found this:
http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/3530/sparql-query-filtering
On 11/12/2013 10:42 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
. . .
my:event ex:tookPlaceDuring
2007-03-01T13:00:00Z/2008-05-11T15:30:00Z^^some:datatype . # The
interval is an ISO 8601 expression for from-to
Is there any known datatype I can use for some:datatype in the
example above? I want to keep it
On 8/9/13 8:34 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
The protected resource will show you where the acl (meta)
data is with the header rel=meta
I thought the consensus was: rel=acl
I guess, we are just going to have to support both, to be safe .
Surely
Milorad,
You should mint the URIs in your own namespace. You should only mint
URIs within a URI space that: (a) you own; or (b) you have been
authorized by the owner to use for minting URIs. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-ownership
Minting URIs in someone else's URI space without
distinctions are a pointless waste of time -- like
debating the number of angels that can dance on a pin. To others, those
same distinctions are essential! Important! And must be debated to the
end of the earth!
David
On 07/11/2013 06:20 PM, David Wood wrote:
Hi Uche,
Yes, but David Booth
On 06/25/2013 11:14 AM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
On Jun 25, 2013, at 12:19 AM, David Booth wrote:
The problem is that some people are claiming that RDF is not a
*necessary* component of Linked Data.
Let me try this --
Is *SPARQL* a *necessary* component of Linked Data?
In other words, must
On 06/25/2013 01:30 PM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
On Jun 25, 2013, at 12:19 AM, David Booth wrote:
In fact, as long as a standard mapping to the RDF model is
available, *any* document format can be interpreted as RDF.
Ahah!
So, if a standard mapping to the RDF model is available for my
On 06/24/2013 09:45 AM, Bonnie MacKellar wrote:
Hi,
I am one of the female lurkers. I am working on a project that is
attempting to pull together some of the health/medical datasets. I may
have posted once or twice when looking for some information. Generally,
I have not posted because I
.
In short, if a document does not have a URI, it is not on the Web.
Similarly, if data is not standards-interpretable as RDF, it is not
Semantic Web data, and hence it is not what most of us would call Linked
Data.
David Booth
I hope you realize that the point of that thought experiment is to
ensure that the technology in question is sufficiently powerful and
flexible, so that *if* a parallel technology were discovered, the two
could be extended to encompass each other with minimal added cost --
*not* that it is in
On 06/20/2013 02:09 PM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
Discussing 5-star Linked Open Data (2010 addition to this
document created in 2006) --
★Available on the web (whatever format) but with
an open licence, to be Open Data
★★
On 06/21/2013 01:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
All,
Situation Analysis (for additional context):
There are two versions of Design Issues documents [1][2] from TimBL
where the primary topic is Linked Data. Both documents a comprised of
four bullet points that outline a principled approach to
On 06/21/2013 10:25 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/21/13 10:15 AM, David Booth wrote:
[ . . . ]
The only sensible interpretation of the stars is that they indicate
milestones of progress *toward* Linked Open Data -- *not* that there
are five levels of Linked Open Data.
That makes sense
On 06/21/2013 07:03 PM, Nathan Rixham wrote:
Linked Data is a moving target, it's not Linked Data 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 etc,
it's a set of technologies which make it easy to have machine readable
data that is interlinked on the web.
Okay, but that is kind of like saying that the Web is a moving target
On 06/20/2013 12:54 PM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
My 2c is .. i agree with kingsley diagram , linked data should be
possible without RDF (no matter serialization) :)
however this is different from previous definitions
Remember: if the data is not standards-based interpretable as RDF
(though
.
+1
Very well put.
David Booth
On 06/20/2013 04:46 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
It's taken 5 years+ to simplify things down to the
Linked Data meme (The semantic web done right) and is starting to gain
some traction.
[ . . . ]
The beauty of of LD is that it's simple and can be understood by a wide
range or people (especially
On 06/19/2013 02:29 AM, エリクソン トーレ wrote:
My point was that even if the data producer doesn't know anything about
RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows
the RDF abstract syntax. That is the strength of RDF and why I think
it is an intrinsic part of Linked Data.
+1
On 06/19/2013 08:33 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Maybe subject of another thread, but this is your fundamental
assumption: every one that subscribes to this list assumes that Linked
Data and RDF are one and the same thing.
Kingsley, it has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that neither I nor
Can you please then setup a pool asking Does creating and
publishing Linked Data require knowledge of RDF?
I would be willing to make such a poll if it seemed that people wanted
it, but I don't think it is necessary. There are *many* document
formats that can carry RDF, and it seems
confused syntax-independence with
serialization-independence. RDF is syntax-dependent. The syntax is
triples. OTOH, triple syntax can be serialized in a wide variety of
ways.
Jeff
-Original Message- From: David Booth
[mailto:da...@dbooth.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:42 PM
To: Luca
On 06/18/2013 01:42 AM, エリクソン トーレ wrote:
One could argue that these examples, while not being RDF, still
adhere to the RDF abstract syntax (triples describing typed directed
relationships between resource).
But that's what RDF *is* -- the abstract syntax. RDF is syntax independent.
Here's
On 06/18/2013 08:29 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com
mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Luckily, I believe only a minority of folks hold the distorted views
you continue to espouse in this debate.
I actually believe the
[Oops! I just noticed this stuck in my out box]
On 06/17/2013 08:07 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/17/13 1:35 AM, David Booth wrote:
If the term Linked Data is hijacked by a broader population
to mean *any* sort of data that is linked -- not necessarily
RDF -- then this will be a major loss
On 06/17/2013 08:11 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
On 06/17/2013 06:21 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
This still doesn't answer my initial question How do you produce
Linked Data without RDF?.
Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object):
{
id: http://example.com/people/luca;,
type:
On 06/18/2013 12:05 AM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program wrote:
The debate about whether linked data requires RDF is actually a typical
example of a wrong formulation in the applicable logic formats in
reasoning resulting from the imperfection of natural language.
The formal definition of the
[Followup to semantic-...@w3.org please]
Original Message
Subject: The need for RDF in Linked Data
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 01:26:35 -0400
From: David Booth da...@dbooth.org
CC: semantic-web semantic-...@w3.org
There seems to be some persistent misunderstanding about the
role
,
David Booth
P.S. Please restrict follow-up discussion about this poll to
public-lod@w3.org
On 06/13/2013 03:28 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
I would *suggest* something that goes something like this:
Does the term Linked Data imply the use of RDF?
You need to specify the context or community in which the term is used.
Otherwise the answers would meaningless. A term of art *always*
Hi Manu,
On 06/13/2013 03:50 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
bcc: RDF WG
*JSON-LD Chair hat on*
David Booth wrote:
In normal usage within the Semantic Web community, does the term
Linked Data imply the use of RDF?
David,
I really wish you would have passed this poll by both the JSON-LD group
Right, but you have used out of band information to know that everyone
has an age. No automated process could know that. null in SQL only
indicates the absence of information, and that is most naturally
indicated in RDF by the absence of a triple, just as the RDB-to-RDF
Direct Mapping
On 06/11/2013 10:59 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
[ . . . ] many RDF advocates
want to conflate Linked Data and RDF. This is technically wrong, and
marketing wise -- an utter disaster.
I have not heard RDF advocates conflating Linked Data and RDF, but maybe
you talk to different RDF advocates
On 06/11/2013 12:18 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/11/13 11:56 AM, David Booth wrote:
On 06/11/2013 10:59 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
[ . . . ] many RDF advocates
want to conflate Linked Data and RDF. This is technically wrong, and
marketing wise -- an utter disaster.
I have not heard RDF
On 06/11/2013 04:20 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/11/13 4:12 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
This is the goal of the Semantic Web: to enable machines to
usefully and (semi-)automatically, find, share, combine and
process web data. Because Linked Data is RDF, Linked Data supports
On 06/11/2013 02:15 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/11/13 1:59 PM, David Booth wrote:
[ . . . ]
But RDF *is* one of Linked Data's defining characteristics, regardless
of whether people outside the RDF community understand that. (And it
seems to me that if they don't understand that, then we
On 06/11/2013 06:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/11/13 6:18 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.com mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Really? You are referring to a revision of the original meme [1].
And when you digest
On 06/11/2013 06:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/11/13 5:15 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
Why are we worried about all of this? Linked Data is clearly defined
by the four principles of Tim-Berners Lee [1]. RDF is in there. So in
order to be Linked Data it has to use RDF.
If you don't want to use
On 06/11/2013 04:57 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 11 June 2013 22:51, David Booth da...@dbooth.org
mailto:da...@dbooth.org wrote:
[ . . . ]
The stars are to encourage people *toward* Linked Open Data -- both
Linked Data and fully Open Data. The stars do *not* indicate
FYI. Progress! Note that they mention machine-readable formats like
CSV, XML, and JSON. Now, how can we get these organizations to provide
that information in Turtle, or provide mappings from those formats to
RDF so that the semantics will be clear and information will be easier
to link
On 04/23/2013 09:38 PM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program wrote:
Maybe someone should start an iJournals store with articles costing a
fixed amount and come up with a formula to pay each contributing journal
for content.
The whole pay-to-publish model is obsolete and should be discarded
wholesale,
IMO the web makes the traditional publishing bottleneck obsolete --
including the need for peer review, which is mostly just a crude method
of indicating endorsement.
Perhaps researchers should now publish their work on Facebook, Google+
or other votable media, and their institutions should
serialization of RDF, which is syntax independent. Here is a much
better version:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Offices/Presentations/RDFTutorial/figures/TwoTowers.png
It appears in this slide set from Ivan:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/1214-Trento-IH/#%28160%29
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org
to it, such as
establishing well-defined tiers of access for different purposes.
We need technical solutions that will help us work through and around
these social barriers.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect
, such as tinyurl.com or
bit.ly?
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
, but still the best (practical) solution?
On 03/04/2012 15:38, David Booth wrote:
On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 14:33 +0100, Phil Archer wrote:
[ . . . ] The actual URI for it is
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=36266
(or rather, that's the page about
Hi Kingsley,
On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 15:01 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/3/12 1:46 PM, David Booth wrote:
[ . . . ]
This use of URI definitions helps to anchor the meaning of the URI, so
that it does not drift uncontrollably.
[ . . . ]
But once on the Web the user really [loses
/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
are all terribly murky, [ . . . ]
They're only murky if you are trying to interpret them as defining a
global semantics for the web, which is not what they were intended to
do.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect
their representations retrieved via HTTP.
Initially this is the same set as
rdfs:Resource. However, some applications
may choose to additionally constrain this
set. .
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions
? Any opt-out mechanism
shifts the burden from publishers to clients. And in the long run, do
we expect to have more clients or more publishers?
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
://www.w3.org/wiki/UriDefinitionDiscoveryProtocol
specifically addresses this issue, though admittedly not with RFC2119
formality.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
.
- It encourages URI owners to publish URI definitions even if those URI
definitions are not perfect.
It also includes numerous other clarifications.
Would something along these lines also meet your concerns?
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author
a provisional thumbs up, I still doubt
whether the TAG (after more than a decade arguing about this and
finally satisfying http-range-14 via a minimal patch) will be able to
come to consensus on a major change. Good luck :)
Thanks. We'll probably need it. :)
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org
tweaked, as additional suggestions arrive. If you
wish you may make a snapshot whenever you consider your deadline to be.
Comments and suggestions are invited; public comments/suggestions should
go to www-...@w3.org .
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those
10016:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Alg2[sym]%20homo%20sapiens
Thanks!
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
be satisfying as a general approach.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 15:18 +0100, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
Hello David,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 05:37:18PM -0500, David Booth wrote:
Essentially, you have used a clause like
?gN http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/maker
http://www.brunni.de/foaf.rdf#me .
instead of a FROM
into unforeseen
difficulties. If some SPARQL servers do handle this well, or if someone
has made such measurements, it would be great to hear about them.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
could come from one graph and the other from
another.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
. Anyone interested in using
it or helping with its development is invited to contact me.
Good luck on your project. It sounds like you are doing great things,
and it sounds like you are on the right path technically.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those
.
No, the idea is that the administrator for http://purl.org/dbpedia/
updates the redirect, to point to whatever new site is hosting the
dbpedia data, so the http://purl.org/dbpedia/Tokyo still works.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author
FYI, that link doesn't seem to work.
David
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 11:46 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
All,
There is a Linked Data driven poll service that enables those with an
opinion re., then matter above, to cast votes: http://vote.data.fm/ .
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org
/jpmccusker/owlsameas-considered-harmful-to-provenance
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
to others. This is the
inescapable consequence of the fact that, for the most part, it is
impossible to define anything completely unambiguously -- a principle
well discussed and established in philosophy.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author
example of where it is useful -- or inversely where it causes
harm if it isn't used -- in the Creative Commons licensing use case in
Interoperability of referential uses of hashless URIs:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/referential-use.html
(See the section called The Conflict.)
--
David Booth
to URI collision (i.e., ambiguity):
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
, it is enormous
value and importance of freely usable universal identifiers. URIs rule!
http://urisrule.org/
:)
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
has a better one, let us discuss it. But
just blandly assuming that it will all come out in the wash is a bad
idea. It won't.
I agree with both of these sentiments though.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect
this distinction. But the failure to
make this distinction does *not* break the web architecture any more
than a failure to distinguish between male dogs and female dogs.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those
in these conversations as the outcomes may turn out
to be important.
Apology gratefully accepted, and I agree clarity in these conversations
is important -- but also difficult to achieve, as ambiguities keep
sneaking in. :)
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those
* application is not *every* application.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 19:56 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Jun 11, 2011, at 5:57 PM, David Booth da...@dbooth.org wrote:
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 17:55 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
[ . . . ]
http://schema.org/Person is not the same as foaf:Person; one is a
class of documents
it.
This advice sounds like an excellent candidate for publication in a best
practices document. And if it is merely best practice guidance, perhaps
that *is* something that the new RDF working group could address.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those
Architecture of the World Wide Web:
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
description determines it.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
, and the heuristic of ignoring the 200 response code is
very pragmatic.
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
that it is *also* a representation corresponding to the
Content-location URI. I.e., the returned representation is *both* a
representation of a generic *and* a more specific resource.
Best wishes,
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 12:59 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Nov 11, 2010, at 8:00 AM, David Booth wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 07:23 +0100, Jiří Procházka wrote:
[ . . . ]
I think it is flawed trying to enforce URI == 1 thing
Exactly right. The URI == 1 thing notion is myth #1
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
