Eric,
Yes, I remember how much work was involved in writing last year's BMC-TR
paper. I didn't mean we're immediately ready for writing another big
paper. I'm more looking to the future. If we can establish a high
quality of work/collaboration, we can then aim at writing paper(s) for
submis
Quoting Matthias Samwald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Maybe we/you could turn it into a journal publication / review? I guess that
> would cause a sudden increase of interest by HCLSIG members with an academic
> background :)
>
It would be nice if HCLSIG can produce a paper (or more than one paper) in
Maybe the URI note can be published under the next charter?
Maybe we/you could turn it into a journal publication / review? I guess that
would cause a sudden increase of interest by HCLSIG members with an academic
background :)
Sorry that I could not deliver the feedback I promised. Too many
Eric informs us that the URI note will not be published as an
interest group note, the reason being that the interest group has not
had a chance to discuss it in its current form and will not do so
before the charter closes at the end of this month.
It is close to being finished, with
Thanks for the very detailed read! I will do my best to do justice
to your comments.
Just to address one of your points: The reason for emphasizing non-
web naming systems and de-emphasizing URIs is to say that the real
goal is clear communication, and that using URIs doesn't give you any
Hi Jonathan,
Comments on
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/uris/
version of 28 April 2008 11:57 -0400.
General thoughts:
- It's been a while since I read a draft, but this looks like great progress.
- Overall it feels heavy on the rationale and light on getting to the point of
what to do
il 28, 2008 11:01 AM
> To: Jonathan Rees
> Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Re: URI note snapshot available
>
> * Jonathan Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-25 13:08-0400]
> >
> > I've been posting revisions to the URI note to the same location:
>
but should be able to read
> "something", such as XML or RDF or even a binary file, yes? This is
> what Jonathan's document intends to say - "useful information".
> Xiaoshu
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 28 A
ormation".
Xiaoshu
Mark
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:01:17 -0700, Eric Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
* Jonathan Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-25 13:08-0400]
I've been posting revisions to the URI note to the same location:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
esolve to a web page as well as to whatever the URI actually
represents, especially when my agent can't read...
Mark
These are Eric's words. The URI note just says "the authors on
balance advise HTTP" and gives its reason. I'm not in a good position
to tell you what you should or shouldn't do.
Jonathan
ally represents,
especially when my agent can't read...
Mark
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:01:17 -0700, Eric Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
* Jonathan Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-25 13:08-0400]
I've been posting revisions to the URI note to the same
* Jonathan Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-25 13:08-0400]
>
> I've been posting revisions to the URI note to the same location:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/uris/
>
> If you're planning on attending the next HCLS meeting/telecon (Monday?)
&
* Jonathan Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-25 13:08-0400]
>
> I've been posting revisions to the URI note to the same location:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/uris/
>
> If you're planning on attending the next HCLS meeting/telecon (Monday?)
&
://www.deri.ie/
http://www.semantic-web.at/
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Rees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: URI note snapshot available
I've been posting revisions to the URI note to the same location:
http://www.w
I've been posting revisions to the URI note to the same location:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/uris/
If you're planning on attending the next HCLS meeting/telecon
(Monday?) please take a look as the meeting approaches. Otherwise,
comments are welcome, but I suggest you r
Some of you may have heard that the URI note has been revised since
the last public draft last October. This is indeed the case, and its
authors are working on polishing the new version. If you would like
to examine a snapshot of our work it is available here:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls
I am reviewing revision 40:
http://sw.neurocommons.org/2007/uri-note/40/
The points of current confusion relate to inconsistencies with the way
uri's are created essentially, and as is stated the main factor for
keeping things alive and well is that servers stay up with a
consistent s
On 06/11/2007, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> > From: Peter Ansell
> > [ . .. . ]
> > Suppose two people come up with slightly different, but mutually
> > useful, definitions at the same time and, before an authority has
> > declared them to be the same
Peter,
> From: Peter Ansell
> [ . .. . ]
> Suppose two people come up with slightly different, but mutually
> useful, definitions at the same time and, before an authority has
> declared them to be the same, want to use both of the definitions in
> queries, and advertise them so they can be used
Dear HCLS,
Alan and I will be presenting the HCLS "URI Note" at Friday's
face-to-face. As homework in preparation for this we would like for
anyone attending to look over the latest draft. It is still very much
a work in progress (>60 to-do items at present count) but is
raft of something. If you're one of those
> people please wait a while for the dust to settle.
>
> On Nov 3, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Michel_Dumontier wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I read the latest URI note [1], and here are some comments:
> >
> > [1] http://sw.neu
Jonathan,
I regret not mentioning this in the first place, but thanks for the
time and effort to put the note together. It makes debating it so much
easier ;-)
In general, I think my objections are related to philosophical
recommendations that are difficult or impossible to follow. I would
expec
r the dust to settle.
On Nov 3, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Michel_Dumontier wrote:
Hi all,
I read the latest URI note [1], and here are some comments:
[1] http://sw.neurocommons.org/2007/uri-note/
Future reviewers - always please include the draft number (35, 36,
etc.).
Thanks for taking the
Hi all,
I read the latest URI note [1], and here are some comments:
[1] http://sw.neurocommons.org/2007/uri-note/
"A usage spec for a name is simply a graph that is designated as one
that specifies when the name should and shouldn't be used"
Given that RDF semantics are open
24 matches
Mail list logo