I feel we should be crisp about these things.
Its not a question of thinking of what things kind of tend
to enhance interoperability, it is defining a protocol
which 100% guarantees interoperability.
Here are three distinct protocols which work,
ie guarantee each client can understand each
Hi all
While I promised a response, time is never my friend despite best intentions.
+1 to Tim on crispness, and on a protocol. I note that the
content-negotiation error which was at the core of this discussion
hasn't really been talked about, and was where I was planning to provide
comment on.
Bernard,
(forget my W3C hat, I am not authoritative on Apache tricks, for example...)
When I put up a vocabulary onto www.w3.org/ns/, for example, I publish it both
in ttl and rdf/xml. Actually, we also publish the file in HTML+RDFa (which very
often is the master copy and I convert it into
I use the follow .htaccess file:
AddType text/turtle .ttl
AddType application/rdf+xml .rdf
AddType application/ld+json .jsonld
AddType application/n-triples .nt
AddType application/owl+xml .owl
AddType text/trig .trig
AddType application/n-quads
Thanks all for your precious help!
... which takes me back to my first options, the ones I had set before
looking at Vapour results which misled me - more below.
AddType text/turtle;charset=utf-8 .ttl
AddType application/rdf+xml.rdf
Plus Rewrite for html etc.
I now get this on cURL
Bernard, Ivan
(At last! Something I can speak semi-authoritatively on ;P )
@ Bernard - no - there is no reason to go back if you do not want to, and
every reason to serve both formats plus more.
Your comment about UA's complaining about a content negotiation issue is
key to what you're trying
Hi Chris
2013/2/6 Chris Beer ch...@codex.net.au
Bernard, Ivan
(At last! Something I can speak semi-authoritatively on ;P )
@ Bernard - no - there is no reason to go back if you do not want to, and
every reason to serve both formats plus more.
More ??? Well, I was heading the other way
Bernard,
On Feb 6, 2013, at 11:59 , Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.com wrote:
Hi Chris
AND : there's NO rdf+xml file in that case, only text/turtle. And that's
exactly the point : can/should one do that, or not? Do I have to pass the
message to adopters : publish RDF in Turtle,
On Feb 6, 2013, at 10:56 , Chris Beer ch...@codex.net.au wrote:
Bernard, Ivan
(At last! Something I can speak semi-authoritatively on ;P )
@ Bernard - no - there is no reason to go back if you do not want to, and
every reason to serve both formats plus more.
Your comment about UA's
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Bernard Vatant
bernard.vat...@mondeca.com wrote:
...
But what I still don't understand is the answer of Vapour when requesting
RDF/XML :
1st request while dereferencing resource URI without specifying the desired
content type (HTTP response code should be
On 06/02/2013 10:59, Bernard Vatant wrote:
More ??? Well, I was heading the other way round actually for sake of
simplicity. As said before I've used RDF/XML for years despite all
criticisms, and was happy with it (the devil you know etc). What I
understand of the current trend is that to
On 2/6/13 4:54 AM, Bernard Vatant wrote:
Thanks all for your precious help!
... which takes me back to my first options, the ones I had set before
looking at Vapour results which misled me - more below.
AddType text/turtle;charset=utf-8 .ttl
AddType application/rdf+xml.rdf
Plus
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:45:10 +, Richard Light rich...@light.demon.co.uk
said:
In a web development context, JSON would probably come second
for me as a practical proposition, in that it ties in nicely
with widely-supported javascript utilities.
If it were up to me, XML with
JSON is not a silver bullet. By only providing JSON, you cut off
access for the whole XML toolchain.
My related post on HackerNews: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4417111
Martynas
graphity.org
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:23 PM, William Waites w...@styx.org wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:45:10
On 2/6/13 6:45 AM, Richard Light wrote:
On 06/02/2013 10:59, Bernard Vatant wrote:
More ??? Well, I was heading the other way round actually for sake of
simplicity. As said before I've used RDF/XML for years despite all
criticisms, and was happy with it (the devil you know etc). What I
Thanks Kingsley!
Was about to answer but you beat me at it :)
But Richard, could you elaborate on this view that hand-written and
machine-processible data would not fit together?
I don't feel like people are still writing far too many Linked Data
examples and resources by hand. On the opposite
On 2/6/13 7:23 AM, William Waites wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:45:10 +, Richard Light rich...@light.demon.co.uk
said:
In a web development context, JSON would probably come second
for me as a practical proposition, in that it ties in nicely
with widely-supported
My view:
On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 11:59 +0100, Bernard Vatant wrote:
[ . . . ]
Do I have to pass the message to adopters : publish RDF in Turtle,
it's a very cool an simple syntax (oh but BTW don't forget to add HTML
documentation, and also RDF/XML, . . . .
Please promote Turtle and actively
On 2/6/13 9:52 AM, David Booth wrote:
My view:
On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 11:59 +0100, Bernard Vatant wrote:
[ . . . ]
Do I have to pass the message to adopters : publish RDF in Turtle,
it's a very cool an simple syntax (oh but BTW don't forget to add HTML
documentation, and also RDF/XML, . . . .
Bernard,
I'm more than happy for Turtle to have a place in the LD ecosystem. My
concern is the suggestion that it should become seen as the primary/the
only delivery format for Linked Data resources such as www.lingvoj.org.
Also, like you, I'm not particularly impressed by massive dumps of
On 2/6/13 10:00 AM, Richard Light wrote:
One issue that Turtle will need to address (it may do so already) is
software support for free-hand data entry. While the format is
seductively simple-looking (well, it is to the likes of us who grew up
on XML/SGML*) it is very easy to make mistakes.
On 2/6/13 1:08 PM, Colin wrote:
Hi all,
Fascinating thread, all arguments being quite valid and it seems it
all depends on what you want to achieve with Linked data.
I was about to write a lengthy text to explain my view, but I'll start
with a table to save time and improve readibility:
My apologies, I hit the Send button a bit too early.
Please read: With so much interlinked data you want to browse, not to get
Turtle files one by one by manually concatenating the base URIs with the
entities names.
Best regards,
Colin
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Colin co...@zebrana.net
Hi all,
Fascinating thread, all arguments being quite valid and it seems it all
depends on what you want to achieve with Linked data.
I was about to write a lengthy text to explain my view, but I'll start with
a table to save time and improve readibility:
*You are..*
*Human*
*Machine*
*You
Hi Kingsley,
Thanks for saving my contribution from the oblivion!
When I said zero usability, I referred to reading Turtle, not writing. I
think Turtle is great for hand writing as you explain, and that we just
miss some ways to insert existing entities more easily and prevent typos.
For
On 2/6/13 1:16 PM, Colin wrote:
My apologies, I hit the Send button a bit too early.
Please read: With so much interlinked data you want to browse, not to
get Turtle files one by one by manually concatenating the base URIs
with the entities names.
You don't have to do any such thing. See:
On 2/6/13 1:38 PM, Colin wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
Thanks for saving my contribution from the oblivion!
When I said zero usability, I referred to reading Turtle, not
writing. I think Turtle is great for hand writing as you explain, and
that we just miss some ways to insert existing entities more
Hello all
Back in 2006, I thought had understood with the help of folks around here,
how to configure my server for content negotiation at lingvoj.org.
Both vocabulary and instances were published in RDF/XML.
I updated the ontology last week, and since after years of happy living
with RDF/XML
On 2/5/13 6:49 PM, Bernard Vatant wrote:
Hello all
Back in 2006, I thought had understood with the help of folks around
here, how to configure my server for content negotiation at
lingvoj.org http://lingvoj.org.
Both vocabulary and instances were published in RDF/XML.
I updated the ontology
29 matches
Mail list logo
