W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: protocol: updated (radically changed) draft

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:50:16 +0100
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, kendall@monkeyfist.com, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org, public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF540CB286.F021C8E7-ONC1256F54.007F735C-C1256F54.0083117F@agfa.com>

Kendall Clark wrote:
[...]
> In case it isn't clear, I'm trying to punt on as many details as
> possible until it can be determined which draft has the best chance of
> consensus. I heard some folks seeming to prefer the first draft (Jos?,
> Janne? me), and I've heard some other folks (Andy and Dan) prefer the
> second, forked draft. I'm not sure which one Tom Adams or Dave Beckett

I haven't made up my mind yet, but am experimenting with URI's like
http://josd.he.agfa.be/. plus what one would type on command line e.g
cwm 
http://josd.he.agfa.be/2004/04rm/refGuidelines/pregnancyProtectionFetus.n3
    http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules.n3
    -think
 
-query=http://josd.he.agfa.be/2004/04rm/refGuidelines/pregnancyProtectionFetusQ.n3
i.e.
http://josd.he.agfa.be/.cwm+http://josd.he.agfa.be/2004/04rm/refGuidelines/pregnancyProtectionFetus.n3+http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules.n3+-think+-query=http://josd.he.agfa.be/2004/04rm/refGuidelines/pregnancyProtectionFetusQ.n3

and that actually (on our intranet) returns the graph I'm looking for..

experiments with 10's of such URI's (also with .euler and in combination
with http://simile.mit.edu/longwell/) are successfull so far..

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 23:51:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:21 GMT