Remember it took a while for DOIs to become linked-data-friendly.
I suspect ORCID has limited staff that is swamped with work and LD is not a
priority for them.
I say give them a year or two to get up to speed and in the meantime
continue to submit bug reports.
It's not clear to me whether they
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Michael Brunnbauer bru...@netestate.de wrote:
hi all
The document at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp-20120229/ uses the
term X (a sequence of octets + media type) is a representation of Y (an
entity).
I have a question: Can two different entities have
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:20 PM, David Booth da...@dbooth.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 20:51 -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
[ . . . ] But then we would also have to define what 'content' and
'description' meant. I
, such as what if an agent can't
parse the particular flavor of RDF that's in use, but before we get
into that I want to see if you understand what I'm suggesting.
Jonathan
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
Jonathan,
On 30 Mar 2012, at 01:51, Jonathan A Rees
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Kjetil Kjernsmo kje...@kjernsmo.net wrote:
Hi all!
I hope it is OK that I just burst in here without having followed the
discussion. Admittedly, I haven't been terribly interested, I've always
enjoyed the 303 dance, I wrote the code and it was easy, and the
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Norman Gray nor...@astro.gla.ac.uk wrote:
Greetings.
[This is a late response, because I dithered about sending it, because this
whole thing seems simple enough that I've got to be missing stuff]
On 2012 Mar 27, at 14:02, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Tue
As a friendly amendment, can I suggest you replace
is a current representation of the information resource identified by W
with
is content of the resource identified by W
or however you want to express this. You can try to define content,
or decide that it doesn't need to be defined, or refer
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Michael Brunnbauer bru...@netestate.de wrote:
Hello Tim,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:59:42PM -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
12) Still people say well, to know whether I use 200 or 303 I need to know
if this sucker is an IR or NIR when instead they should be
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 3/27/12 9:02 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
A prime example is any DOI,
e.g.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000462
(try doing conneg for RDF).
I don't always have to seek or need RDF. I just need
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:15 PM, James Leigh ja...@3roundstones.com wrote:
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
Well foo, I can't find it in the errata list, I take that back. But it
is fixed in HTTPbis.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19#section-7.3.4
Jonathan
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Jonathan A Rees r...@mumble.net wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:15 PM, James Leigh
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Michael Brunnbauer
bru...@netestate.de wrote:
Hello Jonathan,
so let the question be did I GET what the URI denotes and let httprange14
be 200 - yes, 303 - no.
Basically yes, although you have to be careful preserve the
generic/specific (or
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Leigh Dodds le...@ldodds.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jonathan A Rees r...@mumble.net wrote:
...
There is a difference, since what is described could be an IR that
does not have the description as content. A prime example is any DOI,
e.g
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Mike Bergman m...@mkbergman.com wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
On 3/27/2012 3:27 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Leigh Doddsle...@ldodds.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jonathan A Reesr...@mumble.net wrote
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Noah Mendelsohn n...@arcanedomain.com wrote:
On 3/25/2012 3:29 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
I assume it's the most common case, but my reading of 303 is that it's
intentionally pretty vague. I read it as: you might find something useful
over here -- feel free to
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. These picked up from dumps made available by
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. For example, we at legislation.gov.uk might be seriously
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
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
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
Sorry for the cross-posting.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jonathan A Rees r...@mumble.net
Date: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Subject: Call for proposals to amend the httpRange-14 resolution
To: www-...@w3.org
Concerns regarding the efficiency of 303 redirects and the difficulty
23 matches
Mail list logo
