- From: Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:34:22 +0200
- To: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, giovanni.tummarello@deri.org, public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Could you please elaborate a little bit about the requirement concerning the content-type of RDF being application/rdf+xml. At the moment, I name my RDF files with .rdf.xml extension, and it works pretty well (the content-type is text/xml, but it is ok for me). I have never felt the need to change that to a more specific content-type. On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Martin Hepp (UniBW)<martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: > As mostly, recently ;-), I agree with Kingsley - I did not want to say that > proper usage of http is bad or obsolete. But it turned out unfeasible for > broad adoption my owners of small Web sites. > > For huge data sources and for vocabularies, the current recipes are fine. > But I want every single business in the world to use GoodRelations for > publishing at least their opening hours - 19 Million companies in Europe > alone. I cannot explain to every single one of them how to configure their > server. > > Another thing that might have gone lost in the discussion: Even though we > knew the recipes, helping the site owners was difficult, because we > experienced hundreds of different environments - preexisting .htaccess, MS > IIS, hoster-specific scenarios, etc. So the problem is really that such a > low-level technique is not feasible if you face so much diversity as far as > the target system is concerned. > > Maybe some day a certain LOD/SW package will be installed by default on most > servers. But we cannot wait till then. > > BTW: We did not even require the full beauty of LOD best practices. We > simply want them to do as described here: > > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Recipe_8 > > Best > Martin > > Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> >> Giovanni Tummarello wrote: >>>> >>>> That can then be inserted as code snippets via copy-and-paste to any >>>> XHTML >>>> document. >>>> >>>> Any opinions? >>>> >>> >>> Great, why bother with any other solution. >>> even talking about any other solution is extraordinarely bad for the >>> public perception of the semantic web community. >>> >>> Giovanni >>> >>> >>> >> >> Giovanni, >> >> We don't need mutual exclusivity re. Linked Data Deployment. >> >> There's nothing wrong with an array of options that cover a broad range of >> Linked Data deployment circumstances. >> >> HTTP is the essence of the Web (what makes it what it is), and Content >> Negotiation is intrinsic to HTTP. >> >> Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, really. >> >> > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > martin hepp > e-business & web science research group > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen > > e-mail: mhepp@computer.org > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) > skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp > > Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data! > ======================================================================== > > Webcast: > http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ > > Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: "Semantic Web-based > E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology" > http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp > > Tool for registering your business: > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/ > > Overview article on Semantic Universe: > http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe > > Project page and resources for developers: > http://purl.org/goodrelations/ > > Tutorial materials: > Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on > Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey > > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009 > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 20:35:06 UTC