Hi Jürgen,
On 26/07/16 10:06, Jürgen Jakobitsch wrote:
hi,
anyone feeling responsible for the DataCubeValidator [1]. it's not
available anymore.
If I recall correctly that was a W3C-supplied (virtual) machine intended
just to support the last call process with no promise of continued
and I believe personally this is a nice and flexible solution, which I
hope you won't change removing one or the other.
Many thanks to the WG for the nice contribution!
Cheers,
Enrico
[1] http://data.open.ac.uk
On 4 November 2013 15:21, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com
mailto:dave.e.reyno
, qb:parentChildProperty, qb:hierarchyRoot
Dave
On 31/10/13 16:08, Dave Reynolds wrote:
If anyone is using the RDF Data Cube Vocabulary [1] and hasn't yet
submitted an implementation report then please could I encourage you to
do so.
See [2] for details on how to do this or contact me.
Dave
[1] http
The W3C GLD working group is discussing the status of the Organization
Ontology [1] which is currently a Candidate Recommendation.
While there is evidence of usage [2] we cannot yet meet the CR exit
criteria for all the terms in the ontology. The group will need to
decide within the next two
If anyone is using the RDF Data Cube Vocabulary [1] and hasn't yet
submitted an implementation report then please could I encourage you to
do so.
See [2] for details on how to do this or contact me.
Dave
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/
[2]
Hi Damian,
On 25/09/13 14:16, Damian Steer wrote:
On 25/09/13 12:03, Stuart Williams wrote:
On 25/09/2013 11:26, Hugh Glaser wrote:
You'll get me using CONSTRUCT soon :-)
(By the way, Tim's actual CONSTRUCT WHERE query isn't allowed because
of the FILTER).
Good catch... yes - I've been
On 25/09/13 14:57, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
On 09/25/2013 03:53 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
Hi Damian,
On 25/09/13 14:16, Damian Steer wrote:
On 25/09/13 12:03, Stuart Williams wrote:
On 25/09/2013 11:26, Hugh Glaser wrote:
You'll get me using CONSTRUCT soon :-)
(By the way, Tim's actual CONSTRUCT
You may find the Membership n-ary relation in the Organization ontology
[1] a useful starting point. That current represents person,
organization, role bindings over a time interval. There's no reason you
couldn't annotate that with location information as well.
Dave
[1]
While one could debate the scale of impact I do see some successful
civic apps here in the UK.
For example, the Environment Agency's (EA) publication of real time
data on quality of water at bathing sites [1] has been quite successful.
As well as the nice explorer application provided with
On 24/06/13 13:44, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
As you've indicated, there have been many attempts at this over the
years and they never take-off or meet their goals etc.. The problem is
that a different approach is required. Basically, in this scenario lies
a simple Linked Data publication usecase
Hi Frans,
On 24/06/13 17:37, Frans Knibbe | Geodan wrote:
Hello,
I would like to publish some statistical data. A few of these numbers
are percentages. What is the best way to make it clear to data consumers
that the numbers are to be treated as percentages? As far as I can tell,
the XSD data
Just on the question of representing measurements then one approach to
that is the RDF Data Cube vocabulary [1]. In that each observation has a
measure (the thing you are measuring, such as canopyHeight), the
dimensions of where/when/etc the measurement applies to and the
attributes that allow
On 28/08/12 20:39, Antoine Isaac wrote:
Sorry, my owl:someValuesFrom should have been owl:allValuesFrom, I guess.
Actually I think owl:someValuesFrom is right though the easiest
construct is owl:hasValue :
some:codeAConcept owl:equivalentClass [
owl:intersectionOf ( skos:Concept
[Apologies for continuing the cross-posting]
A pattern of using sub-classes of skos:Concept to denote a group of
concepts (and thus be able to use rdfs:range in associated ontologies)
is a good one. It is recommended best practice in data.gov.uk linked
data work, for example.
This does not
On 23/08/12 10:22, Thomas Bandholtz wrote:
Am 23.08.2012 10:40, schrieb Dave Reynolds:
[Apologies for continuing the cross-posting]
A pattern of using sub-classes of skos:Concept to denote a group of
concepts (and thus be able to use rdfs:range in associated ontologies)
is a good one
Hi Sebastian,
I completely agree with what you say about:
o Harish's original post being relevant to linked data and this list
o that the culture of this forum can be counter productive
o that the evidence for linked data delivering business value needs
to be a lot stronger
However,
On 03/04/12 16:38, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
On 12-04-03 02:33 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
I'm hoping for a bit of advice and rather than talk in the usual generic
terms I'll use the actual example I'm working on.
I want to define the best way to record a person's sex (this is related
to the W3C GLD
On 28/03/12 14:50, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
On Wednesday 28. March 2012 14.37.42 Jeni Tennison wrote:
I don't think it's web hosters who would find it hard to deploy, rather that
people who just want to publish some data on some tiny patch of web space
that they own, often actually run by
On 28/03/12 17:07, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
Wed 28 mars 2012 16:35, Dave Reynolds wrote:
This particular piece of the puzzle is not a technology or tools issue.
The web hosting in those cases is perfectly capable of publishing static
files or allowing content in the head of an html document
On 25/03/12 19:24, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Tim,
Alternatively, why not use the existing Link: header? Then we end up
with the ability to express the same :describedby relation in three
places
Which is, of course, in the now-submitted proposal.
Dave
On 24/03/12 13:57, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Jeni Tennisonj...@jenitennison.com wrote:
Where well-behaved sites will have to make a decision is whether to continue to
use a 303 or switch to using a 200 and including a 'describedby' relationship.
For example, we
On 23/03/12 14:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also pointed it out),
that, as shown by the Flickr and Jamendo examples, the real issue is
On 23/03/12 15:40, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 3/23/12 10:59 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On 23/03/12 14:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also
On 17/02/12 21:08, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, David Booth wrote:
On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 18:48 +, Hugh Glaser wrote:
[ . . . ]
What happens if I have http://purl.org/dbpedia/Tokyo, which is set to
go to http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tokyo?
I have (a), (b) and (c) as before.
Now
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 09:42 -0500, Luis Bermudez wrote:
Regarding location, there is another W3C activity, that is defining how to
express Points of Interest [1] .
Thanks for the pointer, I wasn't aware of that.
Maybe site is a POI.
Don't think it is, but another near match. That page
[Maintaining the cc: list, apologies for the cross posting. In fact the
official home for discussion on maintenance of org is the
public-egov-ig. I'll assume for now that public-gld-wg is sufficient.]
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 17:21 +0100, Jakob Voss wrote:
On 08.11.2011 15:11, Phil Archer wrote:
Hi Jakob,
I understand your use case and personally would not be adverse to adding
an aligned superproperty for org:hasSite.
The question is what one?
As you point out, org:Site is supposed to encompass non-physical sites.
This was to cater for organizations which use, for example, shared
Hi Leigh,
On 21/10/2011 08:04, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the response, there's some good examples in there. I'm glad
that this thread is bearing fruit :)
I had a question about one aspect, please excuse the clipping:
Clipping is the secret to focused email discussions :)
On
On 21/10/2011 12:52, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi,
On 21 October 2011 08:47, Dave Reynoldsdave.e.reyno...@gmail.com wrote:
...
On 20 October 2011 10:34, Dave Reynoldsdave.e.reyno...@gmail.comwrote:
...
If you have two resources and later on it turns out you only needed one,
no big deal just
Hi Leigh,
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 17:59 +0100, Leigh Dodds wrote:
So, can we turn things on their head a little. Instead of starting out
from a position that we *must* have two different resources, can we
instead highlight to people the *benefits* of having different
identifiers? That makes it
Hi Norman,
On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 12:13 +0100, Norman Gray wrote:
On 2011 Oct 20, at 10:34, Dave Reynolds wrote:
Benefit 1: You can provide (meta)data separately about the IR and NIR
[...]
Counter argument: this is problematic anyway. If your IR can conneg to
both an HTML and an RDF
Hi Michael,
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 10:57 +0100, Michael Smethurst wrote:
All of the problems mentioned in this thread could be solved with the
addition of a *generic* information resource URI that does the conneg
separately from the 303. Target the *generic* information resource in
your links
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 15:16 +0100, Michael Smethurst wrote:
On 18/10/2011 12:26, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 10:57 +0100, Michael Smethurst wrote:
All of the problems mentioned in this thread could be solved
[Left dist list in place but seems a little broad.]
Hi Danny,
On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 19:34 +0200, Danny Ayers wrote:
On the other hand the linked data API has this covered, e.g. in the
deployment example [2]:
/doc/school/12345 should respond with a document that includes
information
Thanks to Dominique Guardiola the org ontology [1][2] now has French
translations for the label/comment/title strings.
It's good to see multi-lingual support in semantic web ontologies and
I'm very grateful to Dominique for volunteering to do this translation.
Dave
[1] http://www.w3.org/ns/org#
On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 09:59 +0100, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
Frans,
[snip]
Probably VoID metadata/dataset URIs will be easier to discover once
the /.well-known/void trick (described in paragraph 7.2 of the W3C
VoID document) is widely adopted.
greed. But it's not a 'trick'. It's
the sort of thing that could easily be on a Rec track
somewhere, I just wasn't aware of it.
FWIW I'm perfectly happy with VoID's current status as an Interest Group
note.
Cheers,
Dave
On 22 Jul 2011, at 15:39, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 09:59 +0100, Michael Hausenblas wrote
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:52 +0100, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi,
On 22 June 2011 15:41, William Waites w...@styx.org wrote:
What does WebID have to do with JSON? They're somehow representative
of two competing trends.
The RDF/JSON, JSON-LD, etc. work is supposed to be about making it
Hi Hugh,
By the way, as is well-known I think, a lot of people use and therefore must
be happy with URIs that are not Range-14 compliant, such as
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema .
Your general point that there is non-compliant data out there that
people are still able to make use of is
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 21:22 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2011-06 -16, at 16:41, Ian Davis wrote:
The problem here is that there are so few things that people want to
say about web pages compared with the multitude of things they want to
say about every other type of thing in
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 21:10 -0400, glenn mcdonald wrote:
I don't think data quality is an amorphous, aesthetic, hopelessly
subjective topic. Data beauty might be subjective, and the same data
may have different applicability to different tasks, but there are a
lot of obvious and
Hi Nathan,
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 18:45 +0100, Nathan wrote:
Hi All,
To cut a long story short, blank nodes are a bit of a PITA to work with,
they make data management more complex, new comers don't get them
(lest presented as anonymous objects), and they make graph operations
much more
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 15:15 +0100, Adrian Pohl wrote:
Hello Martin,
[snip]
And yes, I agree with Christopher that the extreme notion of open is an
ideology, not a technology. Being able to automate the evaluation of what
you can do with the data is a technology. Requesting that all
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 21:45 +, Nathan wrote:
David Wood wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 10:59, Nathan wrote:
ps: as an illustration of how engrained URI normalization is, I've
capitalized the domain names in the to: and cc: fields, I do hope the mail
still come through, and hope that
Hi Nathan,
I largely agree but have a few quibbles :)
On 20/01/2011 2:29 PM, Nathan wrote:
Dave Reynolds wrote:
The URI spec (rfc3986[1]) does allow this usage. In particular Section 6
Normalization and Comparison says:
URI comparison is performed for some particular purpose. Protocols
On 19/01/2011 3:55 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
The information on how to fully determine equivalence according to the
URI spec is distributed across a wide and growing number of different
specifications (because it is schema dependent) and could, in
principle, change over time. Because of the
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 18:16 +, Nathan wrote:
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:52 +, Nathan wrote:
I'd suggest that it's a little more complex than that, and that this may
be an issue to clear up in the next RDF WG (it's on the charter I believe).
I beg to differ
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:51 +0100, Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
URIs, with these exceptions:
- A
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:52 +, Nathan wrote:
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:51 +0100, Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 06:29 -0500, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
This is the Linked Open Data list.
The Linked Data world is a well-defined bit of engineering.
It has co-opted the rdf:seeAlso semantics of if you are looking up x load y
from the much
earlier FOAF work.
Where is this
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 11:43 +, Nathan wrote:
linked data is not some term for data with links, it's an engineered
protocol which has constraints and requirements to make the whole thing
work.
Where is the spec for this engineered protocol and where in that spec
does it redefine
Hi Phil,
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 10:32 +, Phil Archer wrote:
I'm doing a bit of grunt work on some data about companies and want to
remodel relevant sections using the org vocabulary [1]. But... I'd
rather not be forced to use vCard for the address info (because UK
addresses don't fit
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 13:28 +0100, William Waites wrote:
* [2011-01-04 11:49:43 +] Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com écrit:
] Is VCard that bad? It fits your example below just fine.
The only problem I see with the example is that we don't have counties
in Scotland, we have
/TeamSubmission/turtle/#longString
On 04/01/2011 13:39, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 12:38 +, Alexander Dutton wrote:
On 04/01/11 11:49, Dave Reynolds wrote:
The separation between the Site and the address isn't necessary in
general, but it is necessary in order to reuse
VCards into information about a Social Entity (or an Organization or a
Person), and not a card.
Tim
On 2011-01 -04, at 09:03, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 13:28 +0100, William Waites wrote:
* [2011-01-04 11:49:43 +] Dave Reynolds
Hi Friedrich,
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 00:43 +0100, Friedrich Lindenberg wrote:
Anyway, I'd like to raise some additional points for the future:
1. I'd like to get a better picture of who is currently developing end-user
open government data applications based on linked data. Given that
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 19:50 -0200, Percy Enrique Rivera Salas wrote:
Hello everyone
I only found the educational ontology of data.gov.uk (school.rdf)
Anybody knows, Where could I get the other ontologies of this dataset?
Which dataset, the education dataset?
If so that then
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 12:52 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
All,
As the conversation about HTTP responses evolves, I am inclined to
believe that most still believe that:
1. URL is equivalent to a URI
2. URI is a fancier term for URI
3. URI is equivalent to URL.
I think my opinion on
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 22:17 +0100, Lars Heuer wrote:
Hi Ian,
Even if I come from a slightly different camp (Topic Maps), I wonder
if your proposal hasn't become reality already. Try to resolve
rdf:type or rdfs:label: I think we agree that these resources describe
abstract concepts and
Hi John,
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 15:12 +, John Sheridan wrote:
However, three points from my perspective:
1) debating fundamental issues like this is very destabilising for those
of us looking to expand the LOD community and introduce new people and
organisations to Linked Data. To
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 15:34 -0500, David Booth wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 10:11 +, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 13:22:09 +
Ian Davis m...@iandavis.com wrote:
http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
Ian brings up numerous difficulties with 303
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 20:58 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
When you create hypermedia based structured data for deployment on an
HTTP network (intranet, extranet, World Wide Web) do include a
relation that associates each Subject/Entity (or Data Item) with its
container/host document. A
Hi Michael,
A good idea.
Could I request you more clearly separate the formal specifications from
the de facto community practice documents. The Change Set vocabulary, to
pick one example, doesn't really have the same standing, adoption or
level of scrutiny as the RFCs, does it?
Dave
On Fri,
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 07:19 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 11/5/10 4:51 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 20:58 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
When you create hypermedia based structured data for deployment on an
HTTP network (intranet, extranet, World Wide Web) do
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:11 +, Norman Gray wrote:
Greetings,
On 2010 Nov 4, at 13:22, Ian Davis wrote:
http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
I haven't been aware of the following formulation of Ian's problem+solution
in the thread so far. Apologies if I've missed it,
-road
Andy
--
Andy Powell
Research Programme Director
Eduserv
t: 01225 474319
m: 07989 476710
twitter: @andypowe11
blog: efoundations.typepad.com
www.eduserv.org.uk
-Original Message-
From: public-lod-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Dave
This is a back to basics kind of question ...
What sorts of entities are we happy to describe using Dublin Core Terms?
The Dublin Core Abstract Model [1] talks about described resources
which are described in the FAQ [2] as anything addressable via a
URL ... including various collections of
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 01:38 +0200, Sören Auer wrote:
On 07.10.2010 1:13, Georgi Kobilarov wrote:
So, now the EU also takes that burden off the small linked data
consultancies and businesses.
Not at all! PUBLINK is not aimed at organizations which already
precisely know what they want
On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 10:37 -0600, Wood, Jamey wrote:
Are there any established best practices for converting CSV data into
LOD-friendly RDF? For example, I would like to produce an LOD-friendly RDF
version of the 2001 - Present Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by
Energy Source
Hi Georgi,
Does that mean you are back on the lists? :)
Great API - congratulations!
A suggestion would be to add some form of disambiguating description to
the keyword completion. If I type Scarlet then the completion options
look something like:
Scarlett
Scarlett Johansson
Scarlett
Looks interesting.
In the description you say (1) foaf:mbox_sha1sum, foaf:jabberID,
foaf:aimChatID, foaf:icqChatID, foaf:yahooChatID and foaf:msnChatID are
not owl:InverseFunctionalProperties anymore; instead, they are defined
as owl:Keys for foaf:Agents, which is practically the same
I agree
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 16:17 +0100, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
Beware, technical stuff follows.
Le 16/07/2010 13:07, Dave Reynolds a écrit :
Looks interesting.
In the description you say (1) foaf:mbox_sha1sum, foaf:jabberID,
foaf:aimChatID, foaf:icqChatID, foaf:yahooChatID
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 22:44 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening.
Your company took a risk,
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 22:27 +0100, William Waites wrote:
On 10-06-03 16:04, Dave Reynolds wrote:
It would be great if you could suggest a better phrasing of the
description of a FormalOrganization that would better encompass the
range of entities you think should go there? Or are you
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 01:03 +0300, Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) wrote:
Sorry for jumping in. I was thinking that
a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called
LegalEntity to be more precise.
Not quite, there are other LegalEntities that are not Organizations.
The LegalEntity
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 09:34 +0100, Ian Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Dave Reynolds
dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote:
We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of
organizational structures including government organizations
/org.html#changes
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 08:50 +0100, Dave Reynolds wrote:
We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for
description of organizational structures including government organizations.
This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:29 -0400, Bob DuCharme wrote:
Is any sample instance data available, whether it's using real or fake
organizations?
Not yet, but there will be.
Dave
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 14:07 +0100, William Waites wrote:
On 10-06-03 09:01, Dan Brickley wrote:
I don't find anything particularly troublesome about the org: vocab on
this front. If you really want to critique culturally-loaded
ontologies, I'd go find one that declares class hierarchies
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 12:41 -0400, Bob DuCharme wrote:
Dave,
Does this mean that no sample data has been created yet, or that
samples used in the course of development are not data that you are
free to share?
Given the rather ... short ... timescale we were working under the
sketchy
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 17:06 +1200, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds
dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote:
We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of
organizational structures including government organizations
We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for
description of organizational structures including government organizations.
This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some
checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met
our needs
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 09:26 +0100, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
Dave,
We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for
description of organizational structures including government organizations.
Brilliant! I submitted it now to Sindice [1] and 'registered' the org prefix
in
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 11:04 +0200, Christophe Guéret wrote:
On 06/01/2010 10:26 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
Dave,
We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for
description of organizational structures including government
organizations.
Brilliant! I
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 10:37 +0100, Damian Steer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/06/10 08:50, Dave Reynolds wrote:
We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for
description of organizational structures including government
organizations
Hi Bernard,
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 17:03 +0200, Bernard Vatant wrote:
Hi Dave
Great resource indeed. One remark, one suggestion, and one question :)
Remark : Just found out what seems to be a mistake in the N3 file.
org:role a owl:ObjectProperty, rdf:Property;
rdfs:label role@en;
On 20/05/2010 11:03, Story Henry wrote:
There is the RESTlet framework http://www.restlet.org/
There's also Jersey [1] and, for a minimalist solution to just the
content matching piece see Mimeparse [2].
Dave
[1] https://jersey.dev.java.net/
[2] http://code.google.com/p/mimeparse/
On 20
Hi Leigh,
On 06/04/2010 16:10, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi folks,
Ian Davis and I have been working on a catalogue of Linked Data
patterns which we've put on-line as a free book. The work is licensed
under a Creative Commons attribution license.
This is is still a very early draft but already
von Leigh Dodds
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 12:47
An: Linking Open Data
Cc: Jeni Tennison; Dave Reynolds
Betreff: Linked Data API
Hi all,
Yesterday, at the 2nd Linked Data London Meetup, Dave Reynolds, Jeni
Tennison and myself ran a workshop introducing some work we've been
doing around
On 25/02/2010 18:11, Nathan wrote:
Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi all,
Yesterday, at the 2nd Linked Data London Meetup, Dave Reynolds, Jeni
Tennison and myself ran a workshop introducing some work we've been
doing around a Linked Data API.
The API is intended to be a middle-ware layer that can
Nathan wrote:
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On 25/02/2010 18:11, Nathan wrote:
Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi all,
Yesterday, at the 2nd Linked Data London Meetup, Dave Reynolds, Jeni
Tennison and myself ran a workshop introducing some work we've been
doing around a Linked Data API.
The API is intended
Dave Reynolds wrote:
Jeni Tennison wrote:
I don't know where the best place is to work on this: I guess at some
point it would be good to set up a Wiki page or something that we
could use as a hub for discussion?
I'd suggest setting up a Google Code area and making anyone who
Hi Jeni,
Sorry to be slow to reply to this one.
Jeni Tennison wrote:
Dave (Reynolds) raised the point that lists are an integral part of most
APIs. This is another thing that we know we need to address in the UK
linked government data project, but are unsure as yet how best to do so
Jeni Tennison wrote:
On 12 Dec 2009, at 22:27, Danny Ayers wrote:
I can't offer any real practical suggestions right away (a lot to
digest here!) but one question I think right away may some
significance: you want this to be friendly to normal developers - what
kind of things are they actually
Jeni Tennison wrote:
It's worth noting that most of these APIs support a callback= parameter
that makes the API return Javascript containing a function call rather
than simply the JSON itself. I regard this as an unquestionably
essential part of a JSON API, whether it uses RDF/JSON or RDFj or
Hi Jenni,
Jeni Tennison wrote:
On 13 Dec 2009, at 13:34, Dave Reynolds wrote:
I agree we want both graphs and SPARQL results but I think there is
another third case - lists of described objects.
I absolutely agree with you that lists of described objects is an
essential part of an API
Mark Birbeck wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
One thing that we want to do is provide JSON representations of both RDF
graphs and SPARQL results. I wanted to run some ideas past this group as to
how we might do that.
Great again. :)
In the
Hi Jeni,
Jeni Tennison wrote:
As part of the linked data work the UK government is doing, we're
looking at how to use the linked data that we have as the basis of APIs
that are readily usable by developers who really don't want to learn
about RDF or SPARQL.
Wow! Talk about timing. We are
Steve Harris wrote:
On 10 Jul 2009, at 11:00, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 10:40 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
Personally I think that RDF/XML doesn't help, it's too hard to write
by hand.
MicroTurtle, the sloppy RDF format:
http://buzzword.org.uk/2009/microturtle/spec
99 matches
Mail list logo
