On 20 May 2009, at 05:23, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Specifically, people can use a search engine to find information about
foaf. I know that typing foaf into my browser's address bar and
clicking on the first likely link is *way* faster than digging into a
document with a foaf namespace declared,
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Following the URL to discover the semantic of properties is not only useful
but can also be necessary for CURIE, e.g. when the author uses a paradoxical
prefix just for the fun of it. A language without CURIE would not expose
the users to this necessity.
If you have
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Toby A Inkster m...@tobyinkster.co.uk wrote:
On 20 May 2009, at 05:23, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Specifically, people can use a search engine to find information about
foaf. I know that typing foaf into my browser's address bar and
clicking on the first likely
On 20/5/09 22:54, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Toby A Inksterm...@tobyinkster.co.uk wrote:
And yet, given an example use of the vocabulary, I'm quite certain I
can easily find the page I want describing the vocab, even when there
are overlaps in prefixes such as
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
On 20/5/09 22:54, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Toby A Inksterm...@tobyinkster.co.uk
wrote:
And yet, given an example use of the vocabulary, I'm quite certain I
can easily find the page I want
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On May 18, 2009, at 14:45, Dan Brickley wrote:
Since there is useful information to know about FOAF properties and terms
from its schema and human-oriented docs, it would be a shame if people
ignored that. Since domain names
On May 15, 2009, at 19:20, Manu Sporny wrote:
There have been a number of people now that have gone to great lengths
to outline how awful link rot is for CURIEs and the semantic web in
general. This is a flawed conclusion, based on the assumption that
there
must be a single vocabulary
On 18/5/09 10:34, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On May 15, 2009, at 19:20, Manu Sporny wrote:
There have been a number of people now that have gone to great lengths
to outline how awful link rot is for CURIEs and the semantic web in
general. This is a flawed conclusion, based on the assumption that
On May 18, 2009, at 14:45, Dan Brickley wrote:
On 18/5/09 10:34, Henri Sivonen wrote:
It seems to me that the positions that RDF applications should
Follow
Their Nose and that link rot is not dangerous (to RDF) are
contradictory positions.
That's a strong claim. There is certainly a
Geoffrey Sneddon Fri May 15 14:27:03 PDT 2009
On 15 May 2009, at 18:25, Shelley Powers wrote:
One of the very first uses of RDF, in RSS 1.0, for feeds, is still
in existence, still viable. You don't have to take my word, check it
out yourselves:
http://purl.org/rss/1.0/
Who actually
On 15 May 2009, at 17:20, Manu Sporny wrote:
The argument that link rot would cause massive damage to the semantic
web is just not true. Even if there is minor damage caused, it is
fairly
easy to recover from it, as outlined above.
I was talking about this recently somewhere (can't
On May 15, 2009, at 11:08 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Geoffrey Sneddon Fri May 15 14:27:03 PDT 2009
On 15 May 2009, at 18:25, Shelley Powers wrote:
One of the very first uses of RDF, in RSS 1.0, for feeds, is
still in existence, still viable. You don't have to take my
word, check
Philip Taylor wrote:
The source data is the list of common RDF namespace URIs at
http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/resource/html/id/196/Most-common-RDF-namespaces
from three years ago. Out of those 284:
* 56 are 404s. (Of those, 37 end with '#', so that URI itself really
ought to exist. In the other
2009/5/16 Laurens Holst laurens.nos...@grauw.nl:
Tab Atkins Jr. schreef:
Once you remove discovery as a strong requirement, then you remove the
need for large urls, and that removes the need for CURIEs, or any
other form of prefixing. You still want to uniquify your identifiers
to avoid
On 16 May 2009, at 07:08, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Geoffrey Sneddon Fri May 15 14:27:03 PDT 2009
On 15 May 2009, at 18:25, Shelley Powers wrote:
One of the very first uses of RDF, in RSS 1.0, for feeds, is
still in existence, still viable. You don't have to take my
word, check it
Tab Atkins Jr. schreef:
Ho, ho, you’re making a big leap there! By me explaining that dereferencible
URIs are not needed to make RDF work on a core level, which makes RDF
robust, do not jump to the conclusion that it is of no benefit! URIs are
there for the benefit of linking, and help
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Therefore, link rot is a bigger problem for CURIE
prefixes than for links.
There have been a number of people now that have gone to great lengths
to outline how awful link rot is for CURIEs and the semantic web in
general. This is a flawed conclusion, based on the
On 15/5/09 18:20, Manu Sporny wrote:
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Therefore, link rot is a bigger problem for CURIE
prefixes than for links.
There have been a number of people now that have gone to great lengths
to outline how awful link rot is for CURIEs and the semantic web in
general. This
I understand that there are ways to recover resources that disappear from
the Web; however, the postulated advantage of RDFa you can go see what it
means simply does not hold. The recovery mechanism, Web search/cache,
would be as good for CURIE URL as for domain prefixes. Creating a redirect
is
Dan Brickley wrote:
On 15/5/09 18:20, Manu Sporny wrote:
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Therefore, link rot is a bigger problem for CURIE
prefixes than for links.
There have been a number of people now that have gone to great lengths
to outline how awful link rot is for CURIEs and the semantic
Classes in com.sun.* are reserved for Java implementation details and should
not be used by the general public. CURIE URL are intended for general use.
So, I can say Well, it is not the same, because it is not.
Cheers,
Chris
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
I understand that there are ways to recover resources that disappear from
the Web; however, the postulated advantage of RDFa you can go see what it
means simply does not hold.
This is a strawman argument more below...
All this does not imply, of course, that RDFa
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Reversed domains aren't *meant* to link to anything. They shouldn't
be parsed at all. They're a uniquifier so that multiple vocabularies
can use the same terms without clashing or ambiguity. The Microdata
proposal also allows normal urls, but they are similarly nothing
Serving the RDFa vocabulary from the own domain is not always possible, e.g.
when a reader of a Web site is encouraged to post a comment to the page she
reads and her comment contains semantic annotations.
The probability of a URL becoming unavailable is much greater than that of
both mirrored
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Classes in com.sun.* are reserved for Java implementation details and should
not be used by the general public. CURIE URL are intended for general use.
So, I can say Well, it is not the same, because it is not.
Cheers,
Chris
But we're not dealing with Java
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
The most important point to take from all of this, though, is that link rot
within the RDF world is an extremely rare and unlikely occurrence.
That seems to be untrue in practice - see
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Manu Sporny mspo...@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Reversed domains aren't *meant* to link to anything. They shouldn't
be parsed at all. They're a uniquifier so that multiple vocabularies
can use the same terms without clashing or ambiguity.
Philip Taylor wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
The most important point to take from all of this, though, is that link rot
within the RDF world is an extremely rare and unlikely occurrence.
That seems to be untrue in practice - see
The problem of cybersquatting of oblique domains is, I believe, described
and addressed in tag URI scheme definition [RFC4151], which I think is
something rather similar to the constructs used for HTML microdata. I think
that document is relevant not only to this discussion but to the whole
29 matches
Mail list logo
