not create more syntax.
> (yes, I know the "/" interval separator is in ISO 8601, but didn't make it
> into
> XML, so there is no software to support it. )
>
> Simon
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Svensson, Lars [mailto:l.svens...@dnb.de]
> Sent: Thursday,
[Please excuse cross posting]
The modern, digital library has moved beyond its traditional focus on meta-,
bibliographic, and authority data, and manages or works with a broad set of
data types, leveraging an ever-expanding set of tools and techniques to do so.
In addition, the emergence of
t it? And owl time is on standards track...
Best,
Lars
> -Original Message-
> From: Svensson, Lars [mailto:l.svens...@dnb.de]
> Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 3:58 AM
> To: Cox, Simon (L, Clayton) <simon@csiro.au>; frans.kni...@geodan.nl
> Cc: public-lod@
types in xsd.
[1] http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/pre-submission.html#interval
/Lars
> -Original Message-
> From: Svensson, Lars [mailto:l.svens...@dnb.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 January 2016 3:41 AM
> To: Frans Knibbe <frans.kni...@geodan.nl>
> Cc: public-lod@w3
Frans, all,
(Sorry for a latish reply, I'm still catching up on email...)
On Thursday, December 24, 2015 4:57 PM, Frans Knibbe wrote:
> The DCMI Metadata Terms vocabulary seems to have all the basic ingredients
> for building a versioning mechanism in to a dataset (which is or should be a
>
Martynas,
On Monday, May 18, 2015 3:14 PM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
what you describe here is a classic case of data quality control. You
don't want any data to enter your system that does not validate
against your constraints.
Yes, that is one use case.
As mentioned before, SPARQL and
Kingsley,
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 2:58 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
We have to be careful here. RDF Language sentences/statements have a
defined syntax as per RDF Abstract Syntax i.e., 3-tuples organized in
subject,
predicate, object based structure. RDF Shapes (as far as I know) has
Martynas,
On Monday, May 18, 2015 5:33 PM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
yes, SPIN is a machine-readable way to describe RDF constraints.
OK, but as far as I've understood it's not the only one and the data shape WG
still has to make a decision which should be the canonical way of doing that.
Henry,
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:15 PM, henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote
There is a potential use of profiles that I can think of which has to do with
cases
where there is a need to create JSON-LD crystalisations of RDF [1]. I defined
a
crystalisation of RDF in 2006 as giving an RDF a
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Svensson, Lars l.svens...@dnb.de wrote:
Kingsley,
On Monday, May 11, 2015 9:00 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
We have to be careful here. RDF Language sentences/statements have a
defined syntax as per RDF Abstract Syntax i.e., 3-tuples organized in
subject
Kingsley,
On Monday, May 11, 2015 9:00 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
We have to be careful here. RDF Language sentences/statements have a
defined syntax as per RDF Abstract Syntax i.e., 3-tuples organized in subject,
predicate, object based structure. RDF Shapes (as far as I know) has nothing
John,
On Friday, May 08, 2015 10:05 PM, John Walker wrote:
Hi Lars
On May 8, 2015 at 5:44 PM Svensson, Lars l.svens...@dnb.de wrote:
John, Kingsley,
I wrote:
OK, I can understand that. Does that mean that if I have under the same
URI
serve different representations (e. g
Kingsley,
On Saturday, May 09, 2015 12:07 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
[...]
So to repeat my question in another mail: I have an entity described by a
(generic) URI.
You have an entity identified by a IRI in RDF. If you are adhering to Linked
Open
Data principles, said IRI would take the
Martynas,
I think foaf:primaryTopic/foaf:isPrimaryTopic of is a good convention
for linking abstract concepts/physical things to documents about them.
True. I forgot about those.
Thanks,
Lars
Paul,
Why not just POST some kind of RDF document (or JSON-LD) that describes
what is you want and in what format, or if you really have to use GET,
Interesting thought. So what I would POST is essentially the profile/shape I
want the data to conform to. Nonetheless my view of linked data
Hi John,
On Monday, May 11, 2015 6:07 PM, John Walker wrote:
Hi Lars,
On May 11, 2015 at 5:39 PM Svensson, Lars l.svens...@dnb.de wrote:
I note in the JSON-LD spec it is stated A profile does not change the
semantics
of the resource representation when processed without profile
Martynas,
To my understanding, in a resource-centric model resources have a
description containing statements available about them.
When you try split it into parts, then you involve documents or graphs
and go beyond the resource-centric model.
OK, I can understand that. Does that mean
Kingsley,
On Thursday, May 07, 2015 7:59 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
[...]
The document content retrieved is in RDF-Turtle form, and by way of
profile
relation a user agent should assume that it adheres to the principles
outlined by
the concept identified by
Mark,
On Thursday, May 07, 2015 7:36 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Svensson, Lars l.svens...@dnb.de wrote:
Mark,
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Martynas Jusevičius
marty...@graphity.org wrote:
On the other hand, it seems like you want different descriptions
John, Kingsley,
I wrote:
OK, I can understand that. Does that mean that if I have under the same URI
serve different representations (e. g. rdf/xml, turtle and xhtml+RDFa) all
those
representations must return exactly the same triples, or would it be
allowed to
use schema.org in the
Kingsley,
Hope this live example helps, in regards to understanding the issue at
hand. Basically, what a document describes is distinct from the shape
and form of its content.
We're totally on the same page here, but I need a way to negotiate the shape
and the form of the description and
Kingsley,
To flesh out what you are seeking here, could you also include expected
(or suggested) HTTP server responses to requests that include this
profile relation?
Sure. Only headers resulting from the profile negotiation are included...
1) Using the Link-Header to specify a profile
Martynas,
As you wrote, media type is orthogonal to profiles. To retrieve
RDF/XML, you would use content negotiation (Accept header).
You would need to run the Graphity processor that would match URI
templates and execute SPARQL queries from the sitemap ontology.
Sure, instead of query
Mark,
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Martynas Jusevičius
marty...@graphity.org wrote:
On the other hand, it seems like you want different descriptions of a
resource -- so it seems to me that these should in fact be different
resources? That could be split into
still see a necessity for negotiation profiles, too, not only media
types.
Best,
Lars
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Svensson, Lars l.svens...@dnb.de wrote:
Martynas,
As you wrote, media type is orthogonal to profiles. To retrieve
RDF/XML, you would use content negotiation (Accept
On Thursday, May 07, 2015 4:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 5/7/15 5:08 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
What behavior characteristics are being signaled by the profile relation
embedded in HTTP response metadata? Here's what I suspect you are
implying:
Request:
GET /resource/Linked_data
Martynas,
I am not convinced your use case requires a whole new concept (and
following implementations) of Linked Data profiles.
I have outlined practical solutions you already can use now:
1. use a single description including all vocabularies
I have real customers that say already now
this is supposed to work. When a client
calls http://example.org/some/resource, how does it tell the server it wants
RDF/XML in the dcat-profile? And how does the server tell the client that it
only supports premis?
Best,
Lars
Martynas
graphityhq.com
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Svensson
All,
I am looking for a way to specify a profile when requesting a (linked data)
resource. A profile in this case is orthogonal to the mime-type and is intended
to specify e. g. the use of a specific RDF vocabulary to describe the data (I
ask a repository for a list of datasets, specify that I
Antoine,
Thanks for your explanations.
There's already a slight problem in vCard's treatment of bday; it
includes xsd:gYear, which is not permitted in OWL2-DL, and it does
not include xsd:string, which is available, and which is required
by the RFC.
If I declare the use of xsd:gYear
On Jun 26, 2014 8:02 AM, Antoine Zimmermann
antoine.zimmerm...@emse.fr wrote:
With these constructs, you would never be able to define the value space
of gYear, which is disjoint from all OWL-compatible datatypes.
[...]
Now, you can still use xsd:gYear if you want because OWL 2 DL
Simon, all,
There's already a slight problem in vCard's treatment of bday; it
includes xsd:gYear, which is not permitted in OWL2-DL, and it does not
include xsd:string, which is available, and which is required by the RFC.
If I declare the use of xsd:gYear in my ontology, can I use it then?
Hi all,
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:55:07PM +1000, Renato Iannella wrote:
We can add xsd:gYear to the range for the birthdate data property to
support year-only birth dates.
(and possibly to the anniversary property too)
This would cause all values to be xsd:gYear *and* xsd:dateTime.
Is there a standard (recommended) datatype to use when I want to specify a time
interval (e. g. 2013-11-13--2013-11-14)? The XML Schema types [1] don't include
a time interval format (unless you want to encode it as starting time +
duration). There seems to be a way to encode it using ISO 8601,
All,
Milorad wrote:
I was wandering maybe someone have any advice how to approach
modeling the following construction that is in my opinion closely related to
your question but stated in somewhat more general manner:
Thanks for your pointers. Before this discussion turns into a forum on how
[Apologies for cross-posting]
Workshop on User interaction built on library linked data (UILLD) --
Pre-conference to the 79th World Library and Information Conference, Jurong
East Regional Library, Singapore http://ifla2013satellite.nlb.sg/it/
REGISTRATION NOW OPEN
You can now register for
[Apologies for cross-posting]
Workshop on User interaction built on library linked data (UILLD) --
Pre-conference to the 79th World Library and Information Conference, Jurong
East Regional Library, Singapore http://uilld2013.linkeddata.es/
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS
In addition to full academic
[Please apologize cross-posting]
The German National Library (DNB) has published the German library authority
files as linked data. The dataset consists of 1.8 Mill differentiated persons
from the PND (Personennamendatei, Name authority file), 187.000 subject
headings from the SWD
38 matches
Mail list logo
