public-rdf-comments@w3.org from June 2013 by author

Andy Seaborne

• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (Monday, 3 June)

Antoine Zimmermann

• Re: LD client responsibilities (Friday, 14 June)

Arnaud Le Hors

• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• RE: dataset stuff as an extension or optional feature (Wednesday, 5 June)

Bo Ferri

• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Friday, 7 June)

Dan Brickley

• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Wednesday, 12 June)

Dave Longley

• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)

David Booth

• Re: Managing Public Comments to the RDF WG (Wednesday, 19 June)
• JSON-LS Skolemization [was Re: JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2013-06-11] (Wednesday, 19 June)
• [JSON-LD] Verbiage to replace the re-definition of Linked Data (Tuesday, 18 June)
• Re: Re-definition of Linked Data (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: Re-definition of Linked Data (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization (Monday, 17 June)
• Fwd: The need for RDF in Linked Data (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Sunday, 16 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Sunday, 16 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Sunday, 16 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Saturday, 15 June)
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization (Saturday, 15 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Friday, 14 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Friday, 14 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Friday, 14 June)
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization (Friday, 14 June)
• Re: Ending the Linked Data debate -- PLEASE VOTE *NOW*! (Friday, 14 June)
• Fwd: Ending the Linked Data debate -- PLEASE VOTE *NOW*! (Thursday, 13 June)
• Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• [Turtle]Re: \u0000 in literals? [RESOLVED] (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Wednesday, 12 June)
• [RDF_CONCEPTS] Editorial - Font problem on RFC2119 terms (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: [JSON-LD] Editorial question on conformance (Tuesday, 11 June)
• [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Tuesday, 11 June)
• [JSON-LD] Editorial question on conformance (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: when to de-Skolemize; was Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (Monday, 10 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (Monday, 10 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (Sunday, 9 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Sunday, 9 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Sunday, 9 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• [JSON-LD] Editorial comment about "RDF Datasets" (Friday, 7 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Thursday, 6 June)
• Re: David Booth, waiting for your response (Sunday, 2 June)
• Re: David Booth, waiting for your response (Sunday, 2 June)

David Wood

• Re: Managing Public Comments to the RDF WG (Wednesday, 19 June)
• Managing Public Comments to the RDF WG (Wednesday, 19 June)
• Re: editorial (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: editorial (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)

Eric Prud'hommeaux

• Re: Are Skolem IRIs uninterpreted? (Wednesday, 19 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Sunday, 16 June)

Gavin Carothers

• Re: Add Unique URIs for N-Quads, TriG and RDF/JSON (Sunday, 30 June)

Gregg Kellogg

• Re: What do the resolutions on language tags mean for equality of tagged strings? (Sunday, 9 June)
• Re: What do the resolutions on language tags mean for equality of tagged strings? (Sunday, 9 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (Sunday, 9 June)
• Re: dataset stuff as an extension or optional feature (Tuesday, 4 June)
• Re: David Booth, waiting for your response (Sunday, 2 June)

Gregg Reynolds

• Re: Are Skolem IRIs uninterpreted? (Tuesday, 18 June)
• Are Skolem IRIs uninterpreted? (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: LD client responsibilities (Friday, 14 June)
• LD client responsibilities (Friday, 14 June)
• Re: JSON-LD/RDF feedback (Friday, 14 June)
• RDF11 Concepts - conflation of syntax and semantics (Friday, 14 June)
• JSON-LD/RDF feedback (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)

Gregory Williams

• Turtle CR Parsing Example (§7.4) should be more explicit about literal datatype (Tuesday, 18 June)
• Turtle CR lacks definition of xsd: prefix (Tuesday, 18 June)

Henry Story

• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)

Ivan Herman

• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Sunday, 16 June)
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization (Friday, 14 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Wednesday, 12 June)

Kingsley Idehen

• Re: Re-definition of Linked Data (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: Re-definition of Linked Data (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: Fwd: The need for RDF in Linked Data (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: JSON-LD/RDF feedback (Friday, 14 June)
• Linked Data and RDF, some perspective (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: JSON-LD/RDF feedback (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: Spec changes to address RDF / JSON-LD Alignment (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)
• RDF's challenge (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Monday, 10 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Monday, 10 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Friday, 7 June)
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (Wednesday, 5 June)
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (Wednesday, 5 June)

Manu Sporny

• Re: [JSON-LD] Verbiage to replace the re-definition of Linked Data (Tuesday, 18 June)
• Spec changes to address RDF / JSON-LD Alignment (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)
• The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (Monday, 10 June)
• David Booth, waiting for your response (Sunday, 2 June)

Mark Baker

• Re: Media types and assertions (application/rdf+xml) (Wednesday, 5 June)

Markus Lanthaler

• RE: Re-definition of Linked Data (Monday, 17 June)
• RE: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Monday, 17 June)
• RE: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Monday, 17 June)
• RE: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization (Monday, 17 June)
• RE: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Monday, 17 June)
• Re-definition of Linked Data (Sunday, 16 June)
• RE: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization (Sunday, 16 June)
• RE: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• RE: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Thursday, 13 June)
• RE: editorial (Thursday, 13 June)
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Thursday, 13 June)
• RE: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• RE: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• RE: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• RE: [RDF_CONCEPTS] Editorial - Font problem on RFC2119 terms (Wednesday, 12 June)
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• RE: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Tuesday, 11 June)
• RE: [JSON-LD] Editorial question on conformance (Tuesday, 11 June)
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Tuesday, 11 June)
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF (Tuesday, 11 June)
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (Monday, 10 June)
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Monday, 10 June)
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (Sunday, 9 June)
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Sunday, 9 June)
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• RE: [JSON-LD] Editorial comment about "RDF Datasets" (Saturday, 8 June)
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• RE: dataset stuff as an extension or optional feature (Tuesday, 4 June)
• RE: bNodes as graph identifiers (Monday, 3 June)
• RE: bNodes as graph identifiers (Monday, 3 June)
• RE: bNodes as graph identifiers (ISSUE-131) (Monday, 3 June)

Nathan

• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)

Niklas Lindström

• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Sunday, 16 June)

Pat Hayes

• Re: Are Skolem IRIs uninterpreted? (Wednesday, 19 June)
• Re: Are Skolem IRIs uninterpreted? (Wednesday, 19 June)
• Re: Are Skolem IRIs uninterpreted? (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: Re-definition of Linked Data (Sunday, 16 June)
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization (Sunday, 16 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Sunday, 16 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Sunday, 16 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Saturday, 15 June)
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization (Saturday, 15 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Friday, 14 June)
• Re: Semantics of the JSON-LD Data Model (Friday, 14 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Friday, 14 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: editorial (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• editorial (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Monday, 10 June)

Patel-Schneider, Peter

• Re: Media types and assertions (application/rdf+xml) (Wednesday, 5 June)
• Media types and assertions (application/rdf+xml) (Wednesday, 5 June)

Peter Ansell

• Add Unique URIs for N-Quads, TriG and RDF/JSON (Sunday, 30 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Monday, 17 June)
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Monday, 10 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Sunday, 9 June)
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (Monday, 3 June)
• Turtle recommendation for serialising xsd:string datatype (Sunday, 2 June)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Thursday, 13 June)

Peter Occil

• Fw: Re: What do the resolutions on language tags mean for equality of tagged strings? (Tuesday, 18 June)
• Re: What do the resolutions on language tags mean for equality of tagged strings? (Sunday, 9 June)
• Re: What do the resolutions on language tags mean for equality of tagged strings? (Sunday, 9 June)
• What do the resolutions on language tags mean for equality of tagged strings? (Sunday, 9 June)

Sandro Hawke

• when to de-Skolemize; was Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)
• Re: dataset stuff as an extension or optional feature (Tuesday, 4 June)
• dataset stuff as an extension or optional feature (Tuesday, 4 June)

Steve Harris

• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (Monday, 3 June)
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (Monday, 3 June)
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (ISSUE-131) (Monday, 3 June)
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (Monday, 3 June)
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (ISSUE-131) (Monday, 3 June)

Sven Kunze

• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (Tuesday, 4 June)

Sven R. Kunze

• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (Wednesday, 5 June)

Sven R.Kunze

• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• Understanding of JSON-LD values (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Semantics of the JSON-LD Data Model (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization (Wednesday, 12 June)
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) (Tuesday, 11 June)

William Waites

• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values (Thursday, 13 June)
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (Wednesday, 5 June)
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (Wednesday, 5 June)

zazi@smiy.org

• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (Saturday, 8 June)

Last message date: Sunday, 30 June 2013 15:21:22 UTC