Tim, I don't understand what you are saying here. My understanding of
http-range14 is that one can always use a 303 response for any entity.
Using a 200 promises the result is an IR. Using 303 doesn't promise
anything. In particular it seems perfectly consistent to return a 303
on the way to
Hi Bernard,
On 30 nov 2010, at 09:56, Bernard Vatant wrote:
BTW seems to me (now that you eventually led me to the OWL file) there is
another way this ontology does not follow Linked Data best practices : It
does not rely on any other vocabulary, although many classes and properties
it
, Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.com wrote:
From: Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.com
Subject: Looking for metalex ontology
To: Linking Open Data public-lod@w3.org
Date: Monday, November 29, 2010, 7:41 PM
Hi all
According to http://www.ckan.net/tag/format-metalex
and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
--- On *Mon, 11/29/10, Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.com* wrote:
From: Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.com
Subject: Looking for metalex ontology
Tim
Thanks for taking the time to drill down to those gory details. To follow-up
with Rinke ... ouch indeed :)
BTW seems to me (now that you eventually led me to the OWL file) there is
another way this ontology does not follow Linked Data best practices : It
does not rely on any other
Hi all
According to http://www.ckan.net/tag/format-metalex there are two datasets
in the LOD cloud relying on metalex ontology.
But they provide different URIs for this ontology ...
http://www.best-project.nl/rechtspraak.ttl says :
void:vocabulary http://www.metalex.eu/schema
Bernard,
You have been tripped up by abuse of content negotiation.
Their document says they do conneg.
cwm http://www.metalex.eu/metalex/1.0
gives you data, as cwm only asks for RDF.
Following it by hand
$ curl -H Accept:application/rdf+xml http://www.metalex.eu/metalex/1.0
!DOCTYPE HTML
