://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp/change-proposal-call.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
in my opinion, because they fit really well in context of statistical data.
If anyone has any insiders on this or would like to comment on design
considerations going forward, that'd be great.
-Sarven
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
in use?
I'm starting to wonder...is people using skos out there?
There are a few smallish ones in
http://environment.data.gov.uk/sources/def/bathing-water-quality.ttl
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
equivalent information. If you have:
U :describedby V .
then you can turn it into:
V :hasContentUri U .
and it has the same meaning. What have I missed? Is it important that U is a
string rather than a resource for example?
Cheers,
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Hi Tom,
On 30 Mar 2012, at 17:22, Tom Heath wrote:
On 27 March 2012 18:54, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
2) hard data about the 303 redirect penalty, from a consumer and
publisher side. Lots of claims get made about this but I've never seen
hard evidence of the cost
solutions late this year. I think that's a
key, because many users control very little of their server setup, and
custom code is dangerous, but with the support of Debian the costs for
hosters are marginal. Naively Yours,
Kjetil
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
status codes (or add
headers for that matter).
Cheers,
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
On 28 Mar 2012, at 14:46, Nathan wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Jeni Tennison wrote:
# Details
In section 4.1, in place of the second paragraph and following list,
substitute:
There are three ways to locate a URI documentation link in an HTTP
response:
* using the Location: response
Nathan,
On 28 Mar 2012, at 16:07, Nathan wrote:
Jeni Tennison wrote:
Yes, that's correct. With no constraining Accept headers, it could
alternatively return HTML with embedded RDFa with a link rel=describedby
element, for example.
Is that universally true?
Suppose /uri identified
from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Jeni Tennison wrote:
Nathan,
On 28 Mar 2012, at 16:07, Nathan wrote:
Jeni Tennison wrote:
Yes, that's correct. With no constraining Accept headers, it could
alternatively return HTML with embedded
to identify People are still Wrong.
So it gets a lot of the way there, just not quite all of it.
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
opinion, we
need to recognise that people will do the convenient thing and (a) have a
protocol that is flexible enough to cope when they do so (call this error
recovery if you like) and (b) provide understandable routes from the convenient
path to a more rigorous one.
Cheers,
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
Hi Tom,
On 26 Mar 2012, at 17:13, Tom Heath wrote:
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
the proposal; the others are
things they could do now.
Cheers,
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
.
Cheers,
Jeni
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/57guide.html
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
an information resource, but you haven't required that
assumption to make your assertions about
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2372108pageno=11, so
I really don't see how that would affect anything that you're doing.
Cheers,
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http
by the fact that those who have time to answer
often are the most prone to make rules as complicated as it needed
and to accept them as such. But this is not the way the world goes. Or
that anything that's meant to reach the world as large can be.
Gio
--
Jeni Tennison
http
going to come to a consensus. I know
everyone's tired of this discussion, but I don't think the TAG is going to do
this exercise again, so this really is the time to contribute, and preferably
in a constructive manner, recognising the larger aim.
Cheers,
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http
agree we shouldn't blame publishers who conflate IRs and NIRs. That is not
what happens at the moment. Therefore we need to change something.
Cheers,
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Roberts
Andy Seaborne
John Sheridan
Ben O'Steen
Damian Steer
Thomas Steiner
Ed Summers
Jeni Tennison
Davy Van Deursen
and with thanks to other members of the LOD mailing list who helped identify
areas that required clarification. The original version is at [2].
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc
/www-tag/2012Mar/0006.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Mar/0085.html
[5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda
On 22 Mar 2012, at 20:21, Jeni Tennison wrote:
Hi there,
Hopefully you're all aware that there's a Call for Change Proposals [1] to
amend the TAG's
Michael,
On 25 Mar 2012, at 11:03, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:13:09AM +0100, Jeni Tennison wrote:
I agree we shouldn't blame publishers who conflate IRs and NIRs. That is not
what happens at the moment. Therefore we need to change something.
Do you think semantic
Noah,
On 25 Mar 2012, at 19:39, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
(commenting now as a technical contributor to the TAG)
On 3/25/2012 5:47 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
a 200 response to a probe URI no longer by itself implies that the probe
URI identifies an information resource or that the response
far from what RFC 2616 says about 303.
YMMV.
Noah
[1]
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03.html#status.303
[2]
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04.html#status.303
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
James,
On 24 Mar 2012, at 00:38, James Leigh wrote:
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
to referring to legislation items using the URIs that we'd designed
to be used to refer to legislation items.
Cheers,
Jeni
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp/#carriage
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
On 24 Mar 2012, at 13:22, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
Can you provide a handful of these Doing It Wrong URIs please from
various sites? I think it would really be helpful to have them on hand
during discussions.
OK
Thanks James,
I've substituted that text in.
Jeni
On 24 Mar 2012, at 12:38, James Leigh wrote:
On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 08:11 +, Jeni Tennison wrote:
Can I just cast that into the language used by the rest of the proposal?
What about:
when documentation is served with a 200
On 24 Mar 2012, at 13:57, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
Where well-behaved sites will have to make a decision is whether to continue
to use a 303 or switch to using a 200 and including a 'describedby'
relationship
Michael,
On 24 Mar 2012, at 21:59, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 09:04:14PM +, Jeni Tennison wrote:
I suspect that consumers won't want to make any assumptions and will just
hoover up all the data that they can from wherever they can.
I suspect that publishers
the problem you're describing sufficiently to be
able to comment.
Cheers,
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
do you think it says otherwise? I'd be
glad to clarify it.
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
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 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
Sauermann and Richard Cyganiak. Cool URIs for the Semantic Web. W3C
Interest Group Note, 03 December 2008. (See
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-cooluris-20081203/.)
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Ian said, we are now in a purdah period during which it's
difficult for us to release anything new, but you can expect progress
during the second week of May and on into the future.
Cheers,
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
/etc/examples/lcsh/sh95000541-compact.json
[2]: http://code.google.com/p/linked-data-api/
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
://www.mkbergman.com/845/a-most-un-common-way-to-author-datasets/
Thanks!
Take care,
Fred
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
#Labelled_Concise_Bounded_Description
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
of this is necessary are fine too, but I'll warn you in advance
that I'm unlikely to be convinced ;)
Thanks,
Jeni
[1]: http://n2.talis.com/wiki/RDF_JSON_Specification
[2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-json-res/
[3]: http://code.google.com/p/ubiquity-rdfa/wiki/Rdfj
--
Jeni Tennison
http
://sw.joanneum.at/scovo/schema.html
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
41 matches
Mail list logo
