Dear Anja and Richard,
Excellent work! It's amazing how this thing keeps growing.
Cheers,
Rinke
On 22 sep 2010, at 20:50, Anja Jentzsch wrote:
Hi all,
thanks for all your input and the support on migrating the data set
information to CKAN!
The LOD Cloud as of September 2010 is final
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de wrote:
On 22 Sep 2010, at 20:41, Egon Willighagen wrote:
If you want to see ChEMBL in the next issue, better get started on those
links ;-)
I am on the road right now, but there is low hanging fruit... however,
at the same
Anja, Richard, (ccing the Library Linked Data list)
Really great work! Adding to Rinke's comment, I'm also happily surprised by the coherence that you still can
give to the various parts of the LOD cloud: the colored version is really fascinating to see [1]. Our core
library linked data core
Hi,
is there a legend to the coloured cloud, which explains a bit the
coloured clusters, or did I simply missed it? (it would be nice, if this
legend is directly included in the graphic)
Cheers,
Bob
Am 23.09.2010 10:09, schrieb Antoine Isaac:
Anja, Richard, (ccing the Library Linked Data
Dear all
We are pleased to announce sitemap4rdf [1], a command-line tool that
generates sitemap.xml files, that follow the sitemap protocol [2], for
Linked Data sites that have a SPARQL endpoint.
The Sitemap protocol is supported by the major search engines to ensure
quick and complete
Dear all:
Are there any theoretical or practical problems caused by defining the
range of an owl:DatatypeProperty as
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#anySimpleType
or
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal
?
I think both should be valid (and are useful) in OWL DL ontologies,
Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
Are there any theoretical or practical problems caused by defining the
range of an owl:DatatypeProperty as
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#anySimpleType
RDF Semantics has a good discussion on this at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp
note that:
Hi.
On 23/09/2010 06:21, Egon Willighagen egon.willigha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de
wrote:
On 22 Sep 2010, at 20:41, Egon Willighagen wrote:
If you want to see ChEMBL in the next issue, better get started on those
links ;-)
Hi all:
Thanks! So I understand that for an owl:DatatypeProperty that may hold
xsd:float, xsd:integer, xsd:int, xsd:double, or xsd:decimal values,
the simplest solution is rdfs:Literal.
Is that correct?
xsd:decimal would include xsd:integer and xsd:int (?), but there is no
standard
NB:
It seems that OWL 2 supports
DataUnionOf( xsd:float xsd:decimal )
The question is how broadly current apps and repositories already
support OWL 2, in particular at Web scale, outside of small,
controlled environments.
So I guess rdfs:Literal is the better choice for the moment.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Martin Hepp
martin.h...@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
NB:
It seems that OWL 2 supports
DataUnionOf( xsd:float xsd:decimal )
The question is how broadly current apps and repositories already support
OWL 2, in particular at Web scale, outside of small,
Using xsd:simpleType would discard the case of using XML Literal (for
example a GML encoded Geometry). Literal seems to be a safer bet.
I wish to see in a future version of RDF, a mechanism to valid XML literal
with an XML schema complex type or element.
I think a datatype should only be
Sorry I made a type : please read: I think a datatype should NOT only be
restricted to XML schema.
Using xsd:simpleType would discard the case of using XML Literal (for
example a GML encoded Geometry). Literal seems to be a safer bet.
I wish to see in a future version of RDF, a mechanism to valid
13 matches
Mail list logo
