Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Dan Brickley wrote:
David Huynh wrote:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Question: Is there any fundamental reason why you cannot expose URIs
or URLs where you have "javascript:{}"? Would this break your work
in anyway?
Just for you, Kingsley, I have fixed it :-) You might need to
shift-reload to get the latest code.
I wasn't actually expecting such an intense reaction to just
"javascript:{}". I wonder if that might put off newcomers, who
believe that the slightest profanity against The URIs on this mailing
list will always trigger such adverse reactions.
Ah, we're an excitable bunch around here ;)
Regardless of whether these data URLs are available, the UI work is
exciting and I'm glad you shared it with the W3C lists. If others have
smart ideas for visualising and navigating RDFesque datasets (whether
closed or open by various definitions), let me be clear: they're very
welcome to post them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I hope our enthusiasm
hereabouts for open data doesn't discourage people for sharing
innovative UI ideas. We need all the help we can get! :)
Dan,
I hope you understand my response to David was very much in the vein of
"two-for-one" by taking what was a private discussion (between David and
I) public for broader knowledge exchange and general discourse purposes.
Sure! No criticism intended (or hopefully, felt). I think generally the
culture around here is one of "hey, let us see the data!" and that's
pretty healthy. I just wanted to stress that people with other things to
contribute shouldn't mistakenly get the impression that their stuff is
somehow SemWeb-irrelevant just 'cos the data might not currently be
online at public URLs.
cheers,
Dan
--
http://danbri.org/
