" xx""DQ : wools x
On Jan 25, 2014 4:20 PM, "Robert Sanderson" wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jon Phipps wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Robert Sanderson > >wrote:
> >
> > > > All in my opinion, and all debatable. I hope that your choice goes
> well
> > > > for
> > > >
Hi Jon:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Jon Phipps wrote:
> Well, the notion of 'beta' is a bit complicated... The vocabularies aren't
> beta and shouldn't be regarded as such. They've been well- vetted and
> reviewed and various folks, including me, have been working on them for
> quite a few y
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Robert Sanderson >wrote:
>
> > > All in my opinion, and all debatable. I hope that your choice goes well
> > > for
> > > > you,
> > >
> > > I'd like to repeat: just because I agree with that choice, and I'm
>
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> > All in my opinion, and all debatable. I hope that your choice goes well
> > for
> > > you,
> >
> > I'd like to repeat: just because I agree with that choice, and I'm
> > defending it here, it wasn't my choice. Not at all. And the concer
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Edward Summers wrote:
> Luckily nobody’s really using it ; so it’s not a huge problem :-D
Gee, thanks Ed. :-)
Jon
Luckily nobody’s really using it ; so it’s not a huge problem :-D
On Jan 24, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> On 1/24/14, 6:56 AM, Jon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for reminding me that this is an academic panel discussion in front
>> of an audience, rather than a conversation.
>>
>
> No
(Sorry for a previous empty message)
Hi Jon,
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Jon Phipps wrote:
> Hi Rob, the conversation continues below...
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Robert Sanderson >wrote:
> > To present the other side of the argument so that others on the list can
> > make an i
On 1/24/14, 6:56 AM, Jon Phipps wrote:
Thanks for reminding me that this is an academic panel discussion in front
of an audience, rather than a conversation.
Not entirely clear what you meant by that, but I do think that we have a
very practical issue in front of us, and it's one of the thin
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Jon Phipps wrote:
> Hi Rob, the conversation continues below...
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Robert Sanderson >wrote:
>
> > Hi Jon,
> >
> > To present the other side of the argument so that others on the list can
> > make an informed decision...
> >
>
> T
Hi Rob, the conversation continues below...
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> To present the other side of the argument so that others on the list can
> make an informed decision...
>
Thanks for reminding me that this is an academic panel discussion in front
On 1/23/14, 4:01 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
So in my opinion, as is everything in the mail of course, this is even
worse. Now instead of 1600 properties, you have 1600 * (number of
languages +1) properties. And you're going to see them appearing in
uses of the ontology. Either stick with your
Hi Jon,
To present the other side of the argument so that others on the list can
make an informed decision...
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Jon Phipps wrote:
> I've developed a quite strong opinion that vocabulary developers should not
> _ever_ think that they can understand the semantics of
Well, the notion of 'beta' is a bit complicated... The vocabularies aren't
beta and shouldn't be regarded as such. They've been well- vetted and
reviewed and various folks, including me, have been working on them for
quite a few years, with plenty of feedback from quite a few 'communities'.
That sa
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Jon Phipps wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Ben Companjen
> wrote:
>
>> Returning an HTML document (or XML document as I get) in
>> response to a request for an RDA property or class is wrong in the Linked
>> Data sense [note 1]. This is expla
Hi Ben,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Ben Companjen
wrote:
> Returning an HTML document (or XML document as I get) in
> response to a request for an RDA property or class is wrong in the Linked
> Data sense [note 1]. This is explained in the W3C WG Note that you
> referred to in recipe 2 [2].
Hi Jon,
Regarding the 'returning only relevant part' vs. 'returning whole
document':
It is not 'wrong' to include more than just what you asked for. I don't
know about any guideline that says how much extra should/could be
included. For example, if you ask for a description of me, I might want to
Hi Karen,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I would still prefer something memorable at this stage.
The 'lexical', and therefore more memorable, URIs based on the English
label will always resolve to the canonical URI. If the lexical label
changes, but the semantics don't c
---
>> Gill Hamilton
>> Digital Access Manager
>> National Library of Scotland
>> George IV Bridge
>> Edinburgh EH1 1EW, Scotland
>> e: g.hamil...@nls.uk
>> t: +44 (0)131 623 3770
>> Skype: gill.hamilton.nls
>>
>> _________
Hi Dan,
Thanks for taking such an interest!
Regarding your questions and concerns:
'slash' vs. 'hash' URIs:
As a matter of design, we coin URIs for retrieval of information about the
resource identified by the URI by machines, not humans. The most current
formal rules[1] state that retrieving a
ries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Dan
> Scott [deni...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 22 January 2014 21:10
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fwd: [rules] Publication of the RDA Element
> Vocabularies
>
> Hi Karen:
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:16 PM,
.com]
Sent: 22 January 2014 21:10
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fwd: [rules] Publication of the RDA Element Vocabularies
Hi Karen:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I can't address the first points, but I can speak a bit to the question of
> me
Hi Karen:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I can't address the first points, but I can speak a bit to the question of
> meaningful URIs. In the original creation of the RDA elements, "meaningful"
> URIs were used based on the actual RDA terminology. This resulted in URIs
> li
I can't address the first points, but I can speak a bit to the question
of meaningful URIs. In the original creation of the RDA elements,
"meaningful" URIs were used based on the actual RDA terminology. This
resulted in URIs like:
http://rdvocab.info/Elements/alternativeChronologicalDesignatio
I'm still pretty new at this linked data thing, but I find it strange
that RDA element properties URIs such as
http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/a/P50034 and
http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/a/P50209 both return the same HTML
page in a browser. Would it not have been more usable if the
properties us
Folks:
I hope this announcement will be of general interest (and apologies if you
receive more than one).
Diane
-- Forwarded message --
From: JSC Secretary
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:23 AM
Subject: [rules] Publication of the RDA Element Vocabularies
RDA colleagues,
See the
25 matches
Mail list logo
