Hi Richard,
2010-02-10 02:43 Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de:
On 9 Feb 2010, at 23:17, Christoph LANGE wrote:
[lots of musings on how it could(n't) be done with hash URIs]
...
Of course any reasonable approach to pick the most relevant triples
depends on the specific
On 10 Feb 2010, at 11:03, Christoph LANGE wrote:
Of course any reasonable approach to pick the most relevant
triples
depends on the specific vocabulary and application, but still, are
there
any guidelines? Or should we rather consider ways of mapping hash
URIs to
slash URIs? Are there
Hi.
It seems people have been working in 2007 on a GForge ontology and
mapping it to FOAF, DOAP, SIOC, etc [0].
However I can't find evidence it has been so much used / is still used,
as most links in [1] seem dead now.
Still, I believe the software development forges may benefit from
exposing
2010-02-10 12:20 Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de:
I'd recommend:
foo27#bar1 rdfs:seeAlso slashland/foo27/bar1 .
and then perform standard (non-redirect) content negotiation at
slashland/foo27/bar1, with variants at bar1.rdf, bar1.html etc.
OK, thanks, that makes sense.
…
at the
Christoph LANGE wrote:
2010-02-10 12:20 Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de:
I'd recommend:
foo27#bar1 rdfs:seeAlso slashland/foo27/bar1 .
and then perform standard (non-redirect) content negotiation at
slashland/foo27/bar1, with variants at bar1.rdf, bar1.html etc.
OK, thanks, that
Hi Nathan,
On 10 Feb 2010, at 13:57, Nathan wrote:
I'd recommend:
foo27#bar1 rdfs:seeAlso slashland/foo27/bar1 .
and then perform standard (non-redirect) content negotiation at
slashland/foo27/bar1, with variants at bar1.rdf, bar1.html etc.
Just wondering about the note on non-redirect
Hi Nathan,
On 10 Feb 2010, at 17:26, Nathan wrote:
interested to here more opinions on the *may* also just send a
default
representation back to the client. That's because the Accept header is
just a statement of preference by the client comment though; because
obviously if people did this
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Nathan,
On 10 Feb 2010, at 17:26, Nathan wrote:
interested to here more opinions on the *may* also just send a default
representation back to the client. That's because the Accept header is
just a statement of preference by the client comment though; because
