Hi Jiří,
Jiří Procházka wrote:
Hi,
having read all of the past week and still ongoing discussion about HTTP
status codes, URIs and most importantly their meaning from Linked Data
perspective, I want share my thoughts on this topic.
I don't mean to downplay anyone's work but I think the role of
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 17:04:44 -0500 (EST)
joel sachs jsa...@csee.umbc.edu wrote:
I think we can, though we might not be properly understood, e.g.
Kingsley was great in Gandhi and Sexy Beast.
Wasn't this part of the summer's argument regarding literals as
rdf:subjects , i.e.
But:
Torsdag 04 november 2010 16:21, skrev Giovanni Tummarello:
..but its so deployed now
I have to admit, that would be my response. I wrote the code and it was really
easy. My impression is that people have very few issues with the 303, what
they may feel unfamiliar is the need to use different
On 11/10/10 9:53 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
On Wed, November 10, 2010 2:36, Alex Shkotin said:
Doug,
you are absolutely right,
we need semantic layer communication protocol.
Doug,
If you don't mind, I've changed the heading as GoodRelations subject
line no longer reflects the important
On 11/10/10 1:16 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Alan / John: maybe we could use this thread to arrive at obvious common
ground re. data integration and the diminishing need for a syntax level
lingua franca.
Kingsley
snip
I assume we agree that mapping should be at the conceptual level while
interchange formats remain negotiable. In a sense, the pursuit of a
normative interchange format is inherently mercurial, but not so re.
conceptual schema :-)
/snip
From my POV, the principle of Hypermedia Factors[1]
Hi there,
I followed the 303 vs. 200 discussion and I tried to understand it. I
assume it is correct that I cannot use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon
as subject (or object if that matters) if I want to talk about the
person John Lennon and not about the web page since it returns
On 11/10/10 2:18 PM, Lars Heuer wrote:
Hi there,
I followed the 303 vs. 200 discussion and I tried to understand it. I
assume it is correct that I cannot use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon
as subject (or object if that matters) if I want to talk about the
person John Lennon and
Lars Heuer wrote:
Which solution gives less black spots?
fragments, with approx zero black spots (still to see a valid argument
against them, vs more than i can list for non fragments)
Nathan- I think you are overly discounting scalability problems with
fragment URIs.
Most of the use cases I am dealing with in moving linked data into
production at Elsevier entail SKOS concept schemes with concepts
numbering in the 100,000's to millions, which will be constantly under
curation,
Bradley Allen wrote:
Nathan- I think you are overly discounting scalability problems with
fragment URIs.
Most of the use cases I am dealing with in moving linked data into
production at Elsevier entail SKOS concept schemes with concepts
numbering in the 100,000's to millions, which will be
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 11/10/10 1:16 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Alan / John: maybe we could use this thread to arrive at obvious common
ground re. data
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:12 PM, mike amundsen mam...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
I assume we agree that mapping should be at the conceptual level while
interchange formats remain negotiable. In a sense, the pursuit of a
normative interchange format is inherently mercurial, but not so re.
snip
I didn't understand, from reading the
page, how it would help me in problems that I consider to require
conceptual agreement, for example communicating among research groups
mutant proteins that are hypothesized to be involved in causing
disease, and evidence for those hypotheses.
/snip
In the interest of clarification, the reason that some of us advocate
*not* putting several resources in one file using fragments is that it
then becomes difficult to serve (standard web) pages that give only
information about one resource, because the server doesn't see the
fragment id. This may
exactly the same way, you GET,PUT,POST,PATCH,DELETE descriptions..
PUT /resource1
unless of course you mean, if I have 100,000 concepts described by a
single representation, how do I update it RESTfully, in which case the
answer is clearly, don't put 100,000 concepts in a single
Hi Nathan,
[...]
Which solution gives less black spots?
fragments, with approx zero black spots (still to see a valid argument
against them, vs more than i can list for non fragments)
Maybe fragments are one solution.
The Web isn't a bowl of cherries. The question might be: How to cover
the
On 11/10/10 3:36 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 11/10/10 1:16 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Alan / John: maybe we could use this thread
On 11/10/2010 11:44 AM, Nathan wrote:
Hi Jiří,
Jiří Procházka wrote:
Hi,
having read all of the past week and still ongoing discussion about HTTP
status codes, URIs and most importantly their meaning from Linked Data
perspective, I want share my thoughts on this topic.
I don't mean to
On 11/10/10 3:59 PM, Lars Heuer wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
Thanks for your reply.
[GEThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon]
That's a Document Address, by default i.e., HTTP 200 OK response when
you HTTP GET.
ACK.
Let's assume Wikipedia would return 303 like DBpedia does. Does it
solve the
The assumption then would be that each representation would in the
limit have a corresponding fragment URI. Correct?
Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
exactly the same way, you GET,PUT,POST,PATCH,DELETE descriptions..
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Again, I don't agree that interchange formats are negotiable. They
need to be standardized, and they need to be adopted, lest there be
(very uninteresting, but very real) obstructions to interchange.
This is were
Please tell me that you're not trying to infer that using the HyperText
Transfer Protocol to update an HTML document which describes the staff
in a staff-of-three company, similar to the following, is RESTful:
http://example.org/staff#mary
http://example.org/staff#bob
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
In the interest of clarification, the reason that some of us advocate
*not* putting several resources in one file using fragments is that it
then becomes difficult to serve (standard web) pages that give only
information about one resource, because the server doesn't see
Hi all,
I've collected my thoughts on The Great 303 Debate of 2010 (as it will be
remembered) at:
http://prototypo.blogspot.com/2010/11/another-guide-to-publishing-linked-data.html
Briefly, I propose a new HTTP status code (210 Description Found) to
disambiguate between generic information
Lars Heuer wrote:
Hi Nathan,
[...]
Which solution gives less black spots?
fragments, with approx zero black spots (still to see a valid argument
against them, vs more than i can list for non fragments)
Maybe fragments are one solution.
Maybe there isn't a problem to be solved when you
On 11/10/10 4:46 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Again, I don't agree that interchange formats are negotiable. They
need to be standardized, and they need to be adopted, lest there be
(very uninteresting, but very real)
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
In the interest of clarification, the reason that some of us advocate
*not* putting several resources in one file using fragments is that it
then becomes difficult to serve (standard web) pages that give
On 11/10/10 5:15 PM, David Wood wrote:
Hi all,
I've collected my thoughts on The Great 303 Debate of 2010 (as it will be
remembered) at:
http://prototypo.blogspot.com/2010/11/another-guide-to-publishing-linked-data.html
Briefly, I propose a new HTTP status code (210 Description Found) to
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
In the interest of clarification, the reason that some of us advocate
*not* putting several resources in one file using fragments is that it
then becomes difficult to serve (standard
Hi Nathan,
[...]
Maybe there isn't a problem to be solved when you use fragments - the
only reason anybody is even discussing any of this is because people
introduced a problem by not using fragments to identify things other
than descriptions.
So,
I'm not making a distinction between HTML and RDF/XML files in this
discussion, as either can be containers of RDF statements about
resources. If I want to use REST as a way to update statements about
an NIR named with a fragment URI using whatever serialization, since I
can only update slash URIs
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:30:35 -0800
Bradley Allen bradley.p.al...@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan- I think you are overly discounting scalability problems with
fragment URIs.
Most of the use cases I am dealing with in moving linked data into
production at Elsevier entail SKOS concept schemes with
Thanks; that's a useful example. So the convention in that case is to
append '#concept' to the end of the IR?
Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:30:35 -0800
Bradley Allen
Toby- A quick correction: in the previous email, by end of the IR I
meant to say end of the IR's URI.
I note also that the LC's Thesaurus of Graphic Materials uses slash
URIs instead of hash URIs.
e.g.
http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/graphicMaterials/tgm003862
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:13:42 -0800
Bradley Allen bradley.p.al...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks; that's a useful example. So the convention in that case is to
append '#concept' to the end of the IR?
#concept is what LOC is using for their SKOS Concepts. #me or similar
might be more conventional for
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:07:19 +
Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote:
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85121735#concept
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85121591#concept
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85119315#concept
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh86001831#concept
On Nov 10, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
In the interest of clarification, the reason that some of us
advocate
*not* putting several resources in one file using
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Nov 10, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
In the interest of clarification, the reason that some of us advocate
*not* putting several
Bravo Harry :-)
let me also add without adding anythng to the header.. *keeping HTTP
completely outside the picture*
http header are for pure optimization issues, almos networking level.
Caching fetching crawling, nothing to do with semantics.
A conjecture: the right howto document is about 2
Hi Harry,
On Nov 10, 2010, at 19:50, Harry Halpin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:15 PM, David Wood da...@3roundstones.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've collected my thoughts on The Great 303 Debate of 2010 (as it will be
remembered) at:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:15 PM, David Wood da...@3roundstones.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've collected my thoughts on The Great 303 Debate of 2010 (as it will be
remembered) at:
http://prototypo.blogspot.com/2010/11/another-guide-to-publishing-linked-data.html
Briefly, I propose a new HTTP
On 11/10/2010 11:26 PM, Nathan wrote:
Jiří Procházka wrote:
On 11/10/2010 11:44 AM, Nathan wrote:
Hi Jiří,
Jiří Procházka wrote:
Hi,
having read all of the past week and still ongoing discussion about
HTTP
status codes, URIs and most importantly their meaning from Linked Data
43 matches
Mail list logo
