Hi Tom:
Amen. Thank you for writing this. I completely agree. RDFa has some
great use cases but (like any technology) has its limitations. Let's
not oversell it.
We seem to agree on the observation, but not on the conclusion. What I
want and suggest is using RDFa also for exchanging a bit
Bernhard,
Yes, I understand that this is how rdfs:domain and rdfs:range are
interpreted.
I agree that the knowledge addition of RDFS and OWL is a great strength.
I would rephrase your interpretation to:
you can use foaf:holdsAccount.
if something has a foaf:holdsAccount property then you MUST
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Bernhard Schandl
bernhard.scha...@univie.ac.at wrote:
Instead of changing the original FOAF ontology (which only the owners of
the FOAF namespace can do), I would suggest that you add another property
for your application and define it as super-property of
All,
Thanks for an interesting discussion. It is interesting how many visual
styles different people can come up with. Is there a place that gathers
these up for comparison? I made a twine at
http://www.twine.com/twine/12df6wvd7-1f0/owl-the-web-ontology-language-visualization.
It includes the
Hi Martin,
2009/6/29 Martin Hepp (UniBW) martin.h...@ebusiness-unibw.org:
Hi Tom:
Amen. Thank you for writing this. I completely agree. RDFa has some
great use cases but (like any technology) has its limitations. Let's
not oversell it.
We seem to agree on the observation, but not on the
Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
Hi Tom:
Amen. Thank you for writing this. I completely agree. RDFa has some
great use cases but (like any technology) has its limitations. Let's
not oversell it.
We seem to agree on the observation, but not on the conclusion. What I
want and suggest is using RDFa
Hi Tom,
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Tom Heathtom.he...@talis.com wrote:
Martin,
2009/6/27 Martin Hepp (UniBW) martin.h...@ebusiness-unibw.org:
So if this hidden div / span approach is not feasible, we got a problem.
The reason is that, as beautiful the idea is of using RDFa to make a)
Hi Yihong:
I am a big fan of Codd's one fact in one place credo. However, in this
particular case, that principle is violated anyway, since the literal
values are often duplicated for presentation and meta-data prupolses
anyway (think of 2009-06-29 vs. June 29, 2009). Second, for dynamic
Web
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 13:30 +0100, Mark Birbeck wrote:
If we go back a step, RDFa was carefully designed so that it could
carry any combination of the RDF concepts in an HTML document. In the
end we dropped reification and lists, because it didn't seem that the
RDF community itself was clear
Hi Toby,
Yes...of course...you are right. :)
I would say too, that reification is even more long-winded than the
example you have given! You don't have the actual statement the sky
is blue in your mark-up, so you need even more RDFa. (You only have
the statement Mark says 'the sky is blue'.)
Hi Mark,
2009/6/29 Mark Birbeck mark.birb...@webbackplane.com:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Tom Heathtom.he...@talis.com wrote:
Martin,
2009/6/27 Martin Hepp (UniBW) martin.h...@ebusiness-unibw.org:
So if this hidden div / span approach is not feasible, we got a problem.
The
On Jun 28, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2009-06 -25, at 13:29, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 25, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
Hi all:
After about two months of helping people generate RDF/XML metadata
for their businesses using the GoodRelations annotator
On Jun 28, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Tom Heath wrote:
Hi Pat,
2009/6/25 Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us:
With the sincerest respect, Tom, your attitude here is part of the
problem.
Maybe, along with many other people, I am indeed still stuck in the
mid-1990s. You have permission to be as condescending as
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 01:20 +0200, Tom Heath wrote:
[ . . . ] This discussion only applies to the
303-redirect/slash URI pattern. You can avoid this completely by using
the hash URI pattern . . . .
And as a reminder, you can also use a 303-redirect service if you cannot
configure your server,
Hi Pat,
OK, yelling heard loud and clear :)
By way of concrete actions, I gave Ivan Herman a (probably unfairly)
hard time today here at Dagstuhl to 'encourage' the authors of the
Vocabs Best Practices to press on with the revision of that document
that addresses the current issues. An update of
http://sw.opencyc.org/2008/06/10/concept/Mx4rv8L0_JwpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA
says it is owl:sameAs dbpedia:Spaced
And DBpedia reports the same. They're both wrong! The DBpedia page is
about a television situation comedy show; the Cyc page is about a
freeware computer game.
cheers,
Dan
16 matches
Mail list logo
