W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: [Request for Input] Linked Data Specifications

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:09:45 +0000
To: <nathan@webr3.org>
CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C8F9DCC9.16D52%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>

Nathan,

Thanks for your feedback!

> Michael, also worth mentioning RDFa, Turtle, N3?

Hmmm. Not sure, as I was hoping to avoid duplication to a certain extend, as
I think the SWAP publications page does an excellent job already. But maybe
the most important ones in the supplementary/serialisation section?

> can you bold the link to the SWAP publications / highlight in some way,
> as it's a pretty important one.

Yes.

> Perhaps more vocabs, perhaps sioc, org, dct, foaf and a pointer to a
> good resource for vocabs.

Uh uh. I don't wanna get into domain semantics or pretend I can give an
exhaustive overview of the vocabularies, there, really. Hope you understand
;)


Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
> Organization: webr3
> Reply-To: <nathan@webr3.org>
> Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:00:10 +0000
> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
> Cc: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, Linked Data community
> <public-lod@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: [Request for Input] Linked Data Specifications
> 
> Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>> 
>> A good idea.
> 
> My sentiments exactly :)
> 
> Michael, also worth mentioning RDFa, Turtle, N3?
> 
> and also any note on IRI or HTTP-bis?
> 
> can you bold the link to the SWAP publications / highlight in some way,
> as it's a pretty important one.
> 
> Perhaps more vocabs, perhaps sioc, org, dct, foaf and a pointer to a
> good resource for vocabs.
> 
>> Could I request you more clearly separate the formal specifications from
>> the de facto community practice documents. The Change Set vocabulary, to
>> pick one example, doesn't really have the same standing, adoption or
>> level of scrutiny as the RFCs, does it?
> 
> and +1 to the above (re make them clearly distinct, not say CS is of the
> same standing as web standards!).
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nathan
> 
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 16:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:51 UTC