Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

On 26 Jul 2006, at 00:58, Danny Ayers wrote: On 7/26/06, Xiaoshu Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Use the right tool to do the right thing and carry it out at the right places. Quite. Partitioning of the data server-side can reduce overheads, and this can be achieved transparently (by usin

My conversation with Sean Martin about LSIDs

This (long) note is an attempt to summarize some insights gained from a conversation I had with Sean Martin this afternoon. First of all, a bit of background and a few caveats. There have been some threads springing up recently that have to do with the tradeoffs between having LSIDs as URN's

Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

On 7/26/06, Xiaoshu Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Use the right tool to do the right thing and carry it out at the right places. Quite. Partitioning of the data server-side can reduce overheads, and this can be achieved transparently (by using optional headers). What's not to like :-) Chee

RE: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

-- Golda > Of course it can - > > http://anydomain.com/some/directory > > may be handled by a script handler, and it can make decisions > based on any environment variable, including browser version, > referring page, etc, what to return. > > Its not HTTP that is partitioning, but the

RE: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

--Danny > > The HTTP protocol is not designed to do content partition. > > HTTP can deliver multiple representations for a single URI. > There's partitioning happening somewhere... :-) Is this "somewhere" be carried out at the HTTP level? Take UPS as an anology, UPS delivers package. UPS

Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

Of course it can - http://anydomain.com/some/directory may be handled by a script handler, and it can make decisions based on any environment variable, including browser version, referring page, etc, what to return. Its not HTTP that is partitioning, but the intelligent server proces

Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

On 7/25/06, Xiaoshu Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The HTTP protocol is not designed to do content partition. HTTP can deliver multiple representations for a single URI. There's partitioning happening somewhere... Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com

RE: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

-- Reto, > The feature is hardly implementable with traditional > file-based webservers, but what's the trade off? They may > ignore the Accept-Vocabulary header as most webservers ignore > the Accept and the Accept-Language header. The HTTP protocol is not designed to do content partition.

Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >>> Let me put it in this way, if I have a resource R that is composed >>> with two parts A and B. uri(R) should always return the >>> representation of R, ie., >>> (A+B) right? If as you suggested, the uri(R) would have three >>> possible >>> results: >>> (1) A >>> (2) B >

[CFP] Call for Posters/Demos - Intl. Workshop on WIKI-BASED KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING

Apologies for cross-posting# --- ### # International Workshop on # ### #WIKI-BASED KNOWLEDGE ENGINE

Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

On 25 Jul 2006, at 18:53, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote: - or way to specify in detail the relations that will appear in a document and the vocabulary used to describe those relations, so that by stating that a resource is say a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument, one not only knows what types of relati

Re: [BioRDF] All about the LSID URI/URN

Hello Henry, Apologies if at any point I appear to be shifting the goal posts on you, but the LSID scheme seems to have been developed in response to a significant list of requirements gathered from a large number of stake holders  across the Life Science industry, so there is a fair amount of thi

Re: [BioRDF] All about the LSID URI/URN

Phil Well said! As a practical user of LSIDs for all our infrastructure we are interested in building bioinformatics platforms that work. We are preparing carefully developed argument about why we use LSIDs and why they have been proven invaluable. And what we would like to see done better

Re: [BioRDF] All about the LSID URI/URN

> "HST" == Henry S Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: HST> Sean Martin writes: HST> So, register one of lsids.org, lsids.net, lsids.name or HST> lsids.info, and use e.g. http://lsids.or/xxx instead of HST> URN:LSID:xxx. Bingo -- no new tools required, works in all HST> modern br

Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

Henry Story wrote: > Is it really "Semantic" content neg that we want? That is only part of > the problem. > Imagine I only understand the atomOwl vocab [1] and I expect this > > <> a :CategoryList; >:category [ :scheme ; >:term "dog" ]; >:category [ :sc

Re: [BioRDF] All about the LSID URI/URN

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sean Martin writes: >> Well, either your scheme is intended to be dereferenceble, or it >> isn't. >> >> If it is, then instances are likely/virtually certain to contain some >> kind of named starting point, which needs to be looked up and >> reso

Re: [BioRDF] All about the LSID URI/URN

> Well, either your scheme is intended to be dereferenceble, or it > isn't. > >  If it is, then instances are likely/virtually certain to contain some >  kind of named starting point, which needs to be looked up and >  resolved to an IP address start the dereferencing process.  Domain >  names an

Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

On 24 Jul 2006, at 15:02, Danny Ayers wrote: On 7/24/06, Henry Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - or way to specify in detail the relations that will appear in a document and the vocabulary used to describe those relations, so that by stating that a resource is say a foaf:PersonalProfileDocu

Re: [BioRDF] All about the LSID URI/URN

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [HST comments in additional to Dan's] Dan Connolly writes: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jun/0210.html > >> The root of the problem is that the URL >> contains in it more than just a name. It also contains the netw

RE: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

--Danny, > That sounds like a "slippery slope" argument. I'm not > suggesting an XPath cookie, just something specifically to > enable useful RDF graph partitioning. I agree with your concern. Big RDF document is a big problem and must find a way to resolve it. But I think, first, the ontolo

Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

On 7/25/06, Xiaoshu Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > By the same logic of this semantic cookies proposal, we can > also using > > cookies for XML path to XML document, or even worse to ask the HTTP > > URI fragment identifier should be handled at the server > side but not > > the client side