As promised last time I've posted more verbiage about URI best
practices. It's linked from this page:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practices/Recommendations
Discussion is already taking place in the "URI Resolution" thread on
this list, so please comment there, no
I've posted a newer version that may make some things clearer, and
undoubtedly will make other things less clear. Thanks to everyone for
raising questions - every confusion surfaced helps to improve the end
result.
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practices/Recommen
FYI
Original Message
Subject:Reminder: Cambridge SW Gathering, Tuesday @ 6pm
Resent-Date:Fri, 09 Feb 2007 05:29:40 +
Resent-From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:29:29 -0500
From: Lee Feigenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The GET problem seems pressing and almost tractable,
and we have a lot of experience with it. Finding SPARQL endpoints is
novel, everyone's using ad hoc solutions, and the need for shared
solutions is not so pressing.
I am confused about the use cases that you are attempting to address.
Some minutes from last week's BIONT/BIORDF Telcon
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Meetings/2007-02-05_Conference_Call
--
M. Scott Marshall
tel. +31 (0) 20 525 7522
http://staff.science.uva.nl/~marshall
Adaptive Information Disclosure, University of Amsterdam
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
> I'm curious why you are treating this case so differently from the
> case of finding information about an information resource. I
> assume it is because with information resources you are only
> interested in information from that in
