On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.dewrote:
On 15 Jun 2011, at 01:07, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Google won't scrap schema.org because your thought experiment proved
that it's not “semantically clear.”
Richard, that wasn't the point. You mocked the idea that
On 16 Jun 2011, at 07:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
I think that we are beyond the point where that kind of extremely
idealised account is useful for evaluating web technologies.
We will agree to disagree then. Perhaps in another thread you will say
what *will* be useful for evaluating web
On 15 Jun 2011, at 23:54, Francois-Paul Servant wrote:
And here you and Pat and Alan (and TimBL, for that matter) are preaching
that we can't use this one billion of fantastic free URIs to identify things
because it wouldn't make semantic sense.
do you mean that it's OK to use wikipedia
On 6/16/11 4:41 AM, Joe Presbrey wrote:
...reviewing my Facebook acl:agent in my personal WACL:
http://presbrey.data.fm/.meta#me
http://uriburner.com/describe/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fpresbrey.data.fm%2F.meta%23me
seems to beg Facebook Graph sponger ;)
Yes, but that's a URL (Address) for an HTML
I disagree with this post very strongly, and it is hard to know where to start,
and I am surprised to see it.
On 2011-06 -13, at 07:41, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
On 13 Jun 2011, at 09:59, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
The real problem seems to me that making resolvable, HTTP URIs for real
Hi Tim ,
documents per se (a la HTTP response 200 response) on the web are less and
less relevant as opposed to the conceptual entities that are represented
by this document and held e.g. as DB records inside CMS, social networks
etc.
e.g. a social network is about people those are the
On 13 Jun 2011, at 13:41, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
I want to use these URIs as identifiers in my data, and I have no intention
of redirecting through an intermediate blank node just because the TAG fucked
up some years ago.
The TAG did not f.up as you say, and you can do what you want
On 6/16/11 6:53 PM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
Hi Tim ,
documents per se (a la HTTP response 200 response) on the web are
less and less relevant as opposed to the conceptual entities that
are represented by this document and held e.g. as DB records inside
CMS, social networks etc.
e.g. a
On 6/16/11 9:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
We are already dealing with the schema.org issues [1][2] the best way
it can be handled until opportunity costs veer them towards upping the
semantic fidelity of their contribution.
Links:
1. http://schema.rdfs.org
2.
On Jun 15, 2011, at 7:36 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
On 15 June 2011 18:30, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Boy, that is a humdinger of a non-sequiteur. Given that HTTP has
flexibility, it is OK to identify a description of a thing with the actual
thing? To me that sounds like saying, given
Tim,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Tim Berners-Lee ti...@w3.org wrote:
I don't think 303 is a quick and dirty hack.
It does mean a large extension of HTTP to be uses with non-documents.
It does have efficiency problems.
It is an architectural extension to the web architecture.
We have
On 6/16/11 10:09 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
Schema.org is not a threat. It's an opportunity to step up. Good luck everyone!
Yep!
+1000 .
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
On Jun 15, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
On 16 June 2011 02:26, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing
it describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write
classical model theory to accommodate
On Jun 15, 2011, at 10:04 PM, Jason Borro wrote:
Apologies if my keyboard sneered at you, though comparing an application
problem to 1% of hr14 at web scale hardly trivializes it; certainly it does
the opposite. Good luck preserving your mental model if you require
webmasters to spell
On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:38 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
On 16 Jun 2011, at 07:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
I think that we are beyond the point where that kind of extremely
idealised account is useful for evaluating web technologies.
We will agree to disagree then. Perhaps in another thread
nicely put!
Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Harry Halpin hhal...@ibiblio.org wrote:
I've been watching the community response to schema.org for the last
bit of time. Overall, I think we should clarify why people are upset.
First, there
Hello,
*excuse a little top-posting before comments coming inline ...
Great email Harry, I agree with your sentiment that schema.org shouldn't be
perceived as a massive thread to the SW community. If anything I find and
welcome the move, surely it will widen the audience of web-developers
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 16:38 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 15, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
[ . . . ]
There's nothing around HTTP that says it can't be
given the same name, and it's a darn sight more useful than a
wave-over-there redirect or a random fish/bike association. I can't
Ian,
On 2011-06 -16, at 16:41, Ian Davis wrote:
Tim,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Tim Berners-Lee ti...@w3.org wrote:
I don't think 303 is a quick and dirty hack.
It does mean a large extension of HTTP to be uses with non-documents.
It does have efficiency problems.
It is an
* Harry Halpin wrote:
I've been watching the community response to schema.org for the last
bit of time. Overall, I think we should clarify why people are upset.
First, there should be no reason to be upset that the major search
engines went off and created their own vocabularies. According to the
On 16 Jun 2011, at 22:11, Harry Halpin hhal...@ibiblio.org wrote:
I've been watching the community response to schema.org for the last
bit of time. Overall, I think we should clarify why people are upset.
First, there should be no reason to be upset that the major search
engines went off and
21 matches
Mail list logo
