Hi,
First: Thanks for the kind clarification!
In parallel, we can discourage people to use rdfs:seeAlso to point
to non-RDF resources in the future. It can easily be substituted by
foaf:depiction for images and foaf:page for HTML resources without
RDFa.
Yes, exactly.
FYI: The W3C
On 1/17/11 5:32 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
Hi,
First: Thanks for the kind clarification!
In parallel, we can discourage people to use rdfs:seeAlso to point
to non-RDF resources in the future. It can easily be substituted by
foaf:depiction for images and foaf:page for HTML resources without
Hi John:
IMHO (i) Martin is right regarding the (interpretation of the)
definition of rdfs:seeAlso (ii) Tim is right regarding the practical
issues thrown up by use of the wider interpretation of the range of
rdfs:seeAlso.
The question is: how to fix this for the community in general -
On 1/14/11 3:48 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
Hi John:
IMHO (i) Martin is right regarding the (interpretation of the)
definition of rdfs:seeAlso (ii) Tim is right regarding the practical
issues thrown up by use of the wider interpretation of the range of
rdfs:seeAlso.
The question is: how to fix
On 2011-01 -14, at 03:48, Martin Hepp wrote:
Hi John:
IMHO (i) Martin is right regarding the (interpretation of the) definition of
rdfs:seeAlso (ii) Tim is right regarding the practical issues thrown up by
use of the wider interpretation of the range of rdfs:seeAlso.
The question is:
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 01/13/2011 01:09 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
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
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 06:29 -0500, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
One *can* argue that the RDFS spec is definitive, and it is very loose in its
definition.
Loose in the sense of allowing a range of values but as a specification
it is unambiguous in this case, as Martin has
Hi Tim:
On 13.01.2011, at 12:29, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2011-01 -13, at 05:10, Martin Hepp wrote:
I don't buy in to restricting the meaning of data in the context
of RDF to RDF data.
You can define data however you like for the purpoes of an
argument, but with
nothing to do with how
On 1/13/11 6:29 AM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
The protocol deployed in FOAF and linked data clients requires it to be RDF.
Tim,
Assuming we are discussing HTTP based Linked Data in a protocol sense,
doesn't client side content negotiation come into the mix? The client
knows what it wants, so
Hi Kinglsey,
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
When our engine describes entities it can publish these descriptions
using variety of structured data formats that include RDF. The same
thing applies on the data consumption side. Basically, RDF formats are
options re. Linked Data (the concept).
A
IMHO (i) Martin is right regarding the (interpretation of the) definition of
rdfs:seeAlso (ii) Tim is right regarding the practical issues thrown up by use
of the wider interpretation of the range of rdfs:seeAlso.
The question is: how to fix this for the community in general - maybe we should
On 1/13/11 12:04 PM, Nathan wrote:
Hi Kinglsey,
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
When our engine describes entities it can publish these descriptions
using variety of structured data formats that include RDF. The same
thing applies on the data consumption side. Basically, RDF formats
are options re.
On 1/13/11 12:17 PM, David Booth wrote:
FWIW, I also agree with Martin's comments. It is the client's
responsibility to decide what to retrieve and accept:
1. The definition of rdfs:seeAlso very clearly states that When such
representations may be retrieved, no constraints are placed on the
14 matches
Mail list logo
