On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Norman Gray wrote:
>
> Nathan, hello.
>
> It's NIR that's of interest to this discussion, but there's no way of
> indicating within HTTP that a resource is in that set [1], only that
> something is in IR.
The important distinction, I think, is not between one ki
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Lin Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Jonathan Rees
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you adopt the httpRange-14 rule, what this does is make the Flickr
>> and Jamendo pages "wrong", and if *they* agree, th
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> How could an S2 assuming client, assume that the
>> data is actually about another resource?
>
> By observing D2
Sorry, I'm speaking nonsense. The point is, that if you assume S2 or
or you assume D2, you'll know
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19 October 2011 23:10, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
>>> Hi Jonathan
>>>
>>> I think what I'm interested in is what problems might
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> Hi Jonathan
>
> I think what I'm interested in is what problems might surface and
> approaches for mitigating them.
I'm sorry, the writeup was designed to do exactly that. In the example
in the "conflict" section, a miscommunication (unsurface
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> So, can we turn things on their head a little. Instead of starting out
> from a position that we *must* have two different resources, can we
> instead highlight to people the *benefits* of having different
> identifiers? That makes it more of
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Kingsley Idehen
wrote:
> On 10/18/11 11:20 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>
>> Wow, this is new information for me that the redirect-to-hash issue
>> would bear on this question, so this is interesting.
>>
>> However I must be dense
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Michael Smethurst
wrote:
> I don't seem to be doing a such good job at lurking but I'd thought the
> current argument against fragment ids was you always get a 200 (so long as
> the information resource they hang off exists). So:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes
this list are dealing with
pre-2005 URIs.)
What is the "really bad" thing that happened? (And what could it
possibly have to do with redirects?)
Thanks
Jonathan
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 10/18/11 7:54 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>
>> Can s
Can someone remind me why people are using 303 at all, as opposed to
hash URIs in the #_ or #it pattern?
I've been trying to make a compelling case for 303 over hash, without
much success.
What would be most valuable is war stories, especially ones that
answer questions that have been left unansw
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Tools like this are more useful when they provide not just some
> judgment but also the justification, in terms of what was found and
> what is specified, for any particular judgment. (The W3C HTML
> validator does this really we
I'm not sure what your script is supposed to do. If you give it
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.03.004
it says that "identifies" a Real World Object or Thing. That seems ok,
since documents are arguably real, but this is completely
uninformative.
If you give it
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Pe
The address bar situation is discussed here
http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/04/why_does_the_address_bar_show.html with
reference to the Mozilla bug report.
Basically the browser folks think retaining the pre-forwarding URI
would be a kind of a lie, given that the content that's displayed came
from some
I assumed someone had announced this amazing linked data source to the
list, but I did a search and found nothing, so I guess it falls on me
to say something.
CrossRef, the guardian of most of the DOIs (digital object
identifiers) that you encounter in scholarly articles, publishes RDF
for the alm
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Comments solicited: "Providing and discovering definitions of URIs"
>
> (message being sent to www-tag, bcc: public-lod and semantic-web)
>
> As most of you know, the 9-year-old "httpRange-14" turf war...
Comments solicited: "Providing and discovering definitions of URIs"
(message being sent to www-tag, bcc: public-lod and semantic-web)
As most of you know, the 9-year-old "httpRange-14" turf war is an
annoyance and embarrassment in efforts to develop RDF, linked data,
the Semantic Web, and Web arc
In case anyone's not aware, the TAG is working in the area being
discussed on this thread - i.e. on deployment and performance of
linked data nose-following and the possible conflict with current
metadata practices - as its issue 57,
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 . In my analysis
17 matches
Mail list logo
