- 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>
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