Re: Lightweight RDF to Map Various Semantic Representations of Species

Thanks everyone, I am learning a lot throught this discussion :-) There seems to be a common pattern emerging in the onlist and offlist emails. I am going to try to see if I understand these correctly, with examples. It is probably best to think of several different representations of species de

Re: Lightweight RDF to Map Various Semantic Representations of Species

Hi Peter Answering to your post with a bit of delay, and apologies for this answer being longer than I expected, but that's what you get from waiting a week ... :) Mostly ignoring the rest of the thread, not that you did not get insightful answers so far, I would like to push a different approach

Re: quick advice on content negotiation

Mark Baker wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan: see URIBurner or DBpedia responses which also include LINK response headers :-) I had no idea the community was using it. Excellent! Sequence example via cURL: kidehen$ curl -I -H "Accept: text/ht

Re: quick advice on content negotiation

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Nathan: see URIBurner or DBpedia responses which also include LINK response > headers :-) I had no idea the community was using it. Excellent! > > Sequence example via cURL: > > kidehen$ curl -I -H "Accept: text/html" http://dbpedia.org/

Re: quick advice on content negotiation

Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: An important question not answered in your message is: what is the URI supposed to identify? If it identifies a particular person, then this behavious semantically problematic. Why? Because a

Re: [pedantic-web] Re: quick advice on content negotiation

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Nathan wrote: > actually.. how about this.. Expressing the links in HTML is fine too. > GET /user/23 HTTP/1.1 > Host: example.org > Accept: application/rdf+xml > > --> > > HTTP/1.1 200 Ok > Content-Type: application/rdf+xml > Link: ; r

Re: quick advice on content negotiation

Mark Baker wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nathan wrote: in addition adding the extension .n3 / .rdf to the uri causes content RDF to be returned instead. How is that information communicated to the world? Is it documented somewhere, or expressed in-band? If not the latter,

Re: [pedantic-web] Re: quick advice on content negotiation

Nathan wrote: > Mark Baker wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nathan wrote: >>> in addition adding the extension .n3 / .rdf to the uri causes content >>> RDF to be returned instead. >> How is that information communicated to the world? Is it documented >> somewhere, or expressed in-band?

Re: quick advice on content negotiation

Mark Baker wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nathan wrote: >> in addition adding the extension .n3 / .rdf to the uri causes content >> RDF to be returned instead. > > How is that information communicated to the world? Is it documented > somewhere, or expressed in-band? If not the latter

Re: quick advice on content negotiation

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nathan wrote: > in addition adding the extension .n3 / .rdf to the uri causes content > RDF to be returned instead. How is that information communicated to the world? Is it documented somewhere, or expressed in-band? If not the latter, then I'd say that's not pa

Re: [pedantic-web] Re: quick advice on content negotiation

Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: >> An important question not answered in your message is: what is the URI >> supposed to identify? >> >> If it identifies a particular person, then this behavious semantically >> problematic.

Re: quick advice on content negotiation

Toby Inkster wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 16:43 +, Nathan wrote: >> I've implemented content negotiation as follows: >> where we have a URI resource http://example.org/user/23 >> when that URI is requested then content negotiation using the Accept >> header kicks in, if any of the RDF formats

Re: quick advice on content negotiation

On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: An important question not answered in your message is: what is the URI supposed to identify? If it identifies a particular person, then this behavious semantically problematic. Why? Because a web server should never r

Re: quick advice on content negotiation

On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 16:43 +, Nathan wrote: > I've implemented content negotiation as follows: > where we have a URI resource http://example.org/user/23 > when that URI is requested then content negotiation using the Accept > header kicks in, if any of the RDF formats are specified and data >

Re: attaching multiple licenses

On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 11:05 +, Tom Heath wrote: > IIRC then Tim disagreed with this at some point, arguing that two > documents that describe the same resource and are reached by content > negotiation and a 303 from the same URI should contain the same > information to the greatest possible ext

quick advice on content negotiation

Hi, Just need a quick bit of advice on whether the following is suitable for exposing linked data. I've implemented content negotiation as follows: where we have a URI resource http://example.org/user/23 when that URI is requested then content negotiation using the Accept header kicks in, if any

RE: attaching multiple licenses

Hi Toby, > Two methods spring to mind. The first is reification. [...] Well... no reification. :) > A better solution might be to publish your data in a format that can > make use of multiple graphs. e.g. in N3: > > { > >

RE: attaching multiple licenses

Hi Tom, sure, in an ideal world we could just point to the rdf data in other sources. Unfortunately, we're not quite there yet... Integrating data includes data cleansing, schema mapping etc., and if we'd just publish the mapping and cleansing rules instead of the cleaned data, then the rdf clien