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

Sunday, 30 June 2013

• Re: Add Unique URIs for N-Quads, TriG and RDF/JSON Gavin Carothers
• Add Unique URIs for N-Quads, TriG and RDF/JSON Peter Ansell

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

• Re: Managing Public Comments to the RDF WG David Wood
• Re: Managing Public Comments to the RDF WG David Booth
• JSON-LS Skolemization [was Re: JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2013-06-11] David Booth
• Managing Public Comments to the RDF WG David Wood
• Re: Are Skolem IRIs uninterpreted? Pat Hayes
• Re: Are Skolem IRIs uninterpreted? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Are Skolem IRIs uninterpreted? Pat Hayes

Tuesday, 18 June 2013

• Fw: Re: What do the resolutions on language tags mean for equality of tagged strings? Peter Occil
• Turtle CR Parsing Example (§7.4) should be more explicit about literal datatype Gregory Williams
• Turtle CR lacks definition of xsd: prefix Gregory Williams
• Re: [JSON-LD] Verbiage to replace the re-definition of Linked Data Manu Sporny
• [JSON-LD] Verbiage to replace the re-definition of Linked Data David Booth
• Re: Are Skolem IRIs uninterpreted? Gregg Reynolds

Monday, 17 June 2013

• Re: Re-definition of Linked Data Kingsley Idehen
• Re: Re-definition of Linked Data David Booth
• Re: Re-definition of Linked Data Kingsley Idehen
• Re: Re-definition of Linked Data David Booth
• Re: Are Skolem IRIs uninterpreted? Pat Hayes
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Pat Hayes
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization David Booth
• RE: Re-definition of Linked Data Markus Lanthaler
• Are Skolem IRIs uninterpreted? Gregg Reynolds
• Re: Fwd: The need for RDF in Linked Data Kingsley Idehen
• RE: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Markus Lanthaler
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Andy Seaborne
• RE: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Markus Lanthaler
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Andy Seaborne
• RE: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization Markus Lanthaler
• RE: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Markus Lanthaler
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Peter Ansell
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Andy Seaborne
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Ivan Herman
• Fwd: The need for RDF in Linked Data David Booth
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization David Booth

Sunday, 16 June 2013

• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization David Booth
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization David Booth
• Re: Re-definition of Linked Data Pat Hayes
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization Pat Hayes
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re-definition of Linked Data Markus Lanthaler
• RE: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization Markus Lanthaler
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Ivan Herman
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Niklas Lindström
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Pat Hayes
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization David Booth
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Pat Hayes

Saturday, 15 June 2013

• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization David Booth
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization David Booth
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Pat Hayes
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization Pat Hayes

Friday, 14 June 2013

• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization David Booth
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Pat Hayes
• Re: Semantics of the JSON-LD Data Model Pat Hayes
• Re: LD client responsibilities Gregg Reynolds
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization David Booth
• Re: LD client responsibilities Antoine Zimmermann
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization David Booth
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization David Booth
• LD client responsibilities Gregg Reynolds
• Re: JSON-LD/RDF feedback Kingsley Idehen
• Re: JSON-LD/RDF feedback Gregg Reynolds
• Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization Ivan Herman
• Re: Ending the Linked Data debate -- PLEASE VOTE *NOW*! David Booth
• RDF11 Concepts - conflation of syntax and semantics Gregg Reynolds
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Pat Hayes

Thursday, 13 June 2013

• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values Dave Longley
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values Sven R.Kunze
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values Sven R.Kunze
• Linked Data and RDF, some perspective Kingsley Idehen
• Fwd: Ending the Linked Data debate -- PLEASE VOTE *NOW*! David Booth
• RE: Understanding of JSON-LD values Markus Lanthaler
• Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization David Booth
• Re: JSON-LD/RDF feedback Kingsley Idehen
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values Dave Longley
• JSON-LD/RDF feedback Gregg Reynolds
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values Sven R. Kunze
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Kingsley Idehen
• RE: Understanding of JSON-LD values Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values Kingsley Idehen
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values Kingsley Idehen
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Markus Lanthaler
• RE: editorial Markus Lanthaler
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Markus Lanthaler
• RE: Understanding of JSON-LD values Markus Lanthaler
• RE: Understanding of JSON-LD values Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values William Waites
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values Peter Ansell
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RE: Understanding of JSON-LD values Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Understanding of JSON-LD values Peter Ansell

Wednesday, 12 June 2013

• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Kingsley Idehen
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Kingsley Idehen
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Nathan
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) David Booth
• Understanding of JSON-LD values Sven R.Kunze
• Semantics of the JSON-LD Data Model Sven R.Kunze
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Sven R.Kunze
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Kingsley Idehen
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) David Booth
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Kingsley Idehen
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization David Booth
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) David Booth
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Sven R.Kunze
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Kingsley Idehen
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) David Booth
• [Turtle]Re: \u0000 in literals? [RESOLVED] David Booth
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization David Booth
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Kingsley Idehen
• Re: editorial David Wood
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) David Booth
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Pat Hayes
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization David Booth
• Re: editorial Pat Hayes
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Pat Hayes
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Pat Hayes
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Kingsley Idehen
• RE: [RDF_CONCEPTS] Editorial - Font problem on RFC2119 terms Markus Lanthaler
• Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Ivan Herman
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Kingsley Idehen
• [RDF_CONCEPTS] Editorial - Font problem on RFC2119 terms David Booth
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment David Booth
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) David Booth
• Re: editorial David Wood
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Sven R. Kunze
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Dan Brickley
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Henry Story
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Markus Lanthaler
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Markus Lanthaler
• editorial Pat Hayes
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Pat Hayes
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Pat Hayes
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Arnaud Le Hors
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Markus Lanthaler

Tuesday, 11 June 2013

• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Sven R.Kunze
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Pat Hayes
• Re: [JSON-LD] Editorial question on conformance David Booth
• RE: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization Markus Lanthaler
• RE: [JSON-LD] Editorial question on conformance Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Spec changes to address RDF / JSON-LD Alignment (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Kingsley Idehen
• Spec changes to address RDF / JSON-LD Alignment (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Manu Sporny
• [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization David Booth
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Gregg Reynolds
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) David Wood
• [JSON-LD] Editorial question on conformance David Booth
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Kingsley Idehen
• 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 David Booth
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Manu Sporny
• 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 Sandro Hawke
• RDF's challenge Kingsley Idehen
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Kingsley Idehen
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Kingsley Idehen
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Markus Lanthaler
• RE: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Markus Lanthaler
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Pat Hayes
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Pat Hayes
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF David Booth
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF Sandro Hawke
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF David Booth
• Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Sandro Hawke
• The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data) Manu Sporny

Monday, 10 June 2013

• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data David Booth
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data Manu Sporny
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Kingsley Idehen
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Pat Hayes
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data Markus Lanthaler
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Peter Ansell
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Kingsley Idehen
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data David Booth

Sunday, 9 June 2013

• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data Markus Lanthaler
• Re: What do the resolutions on language tags mean for equality of tagged strings? Peter Occil
• Re: What do the resolutions on language tags mean for equality of tagged strings? Gregg Kellogg
• Re: What do the resolutions on language tags mean for equality of tagged strings? Peter Occil
• Re: What do the resolutions on language tags mean for equality of tagged strings? Gregg Kellogg
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data Gregg Kellogg
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data David Booth
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment David Booth
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment David Booth
• What do the resolutions on language tags mean for equality of tagged strings? Peter Occil
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Peter Ansell

Saturday, 8 June 2013

• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Kingsley Idehen
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Kingsley Idehen
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Kingsley Idehen
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Markus Lanthaler
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment David Booth
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment David Booth
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment zazi@smiy.org
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Kingsley Idehen
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Kingsley Idehen
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Sven R. Kunze
• RE: [JSON-LD] Editorial comment about "RDF Datasets" Markus Lanthaler
• RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment David Booth

Friday, 7 June 2013

• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Bo Ferri

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers Sven R. Kunze

Friday, 7 June 2013

• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment Kingsley Idehen
• [JSON-LD] Editorial comment about "RDF Datasets" David Booth

Thursday, 6 June 2013

• Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment David Booth

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers Kingsley Idehen
• Re: Media types and assertions (application/rdf+xml) Patel-Schneider, Peter
• Re: Media types and assertions (application/rdf+xml) Mark Baker
• Media types and assertions (application/rdf+xml) Patel-Schneider, Peter
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers William Waites
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers Kingsley Idehen
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers William Waites

Tuesday, 4 June 2013

• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers Sven Kunze

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

• RE: dataset stuff as an extension or optional feature Arnaud Le Hors

Tuesday, 4 June 2013

• RE: dataset stuff as an extension or optional feature Markus Lanthaler
• Re: dataset stuff as an extension or optional feature Gregg Kellogg
• Re: dataset stuff as an extension or optional feature Sandro Hawke
• dataset stuff as an extension or optional feature Sandro Hawke

Monday, 3 June 2013

• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers Andy Seaborne
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers Steve Harris
• RE: bNodes as graph identifiers Markus Lanthaler
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers Steve Harris
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers Peter Ansell
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (ISSUE-131) Steve Harris
• RE: bNodes as graph identifiers Markus Lanthaler
• RE: bNodes as graph identifiers (ISSUE-131) Markus Lanthaler
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers Steve Harris
• Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (ISSUE-131) Steve Harris

Sunday, 2 June 2013

• Re: David Booth, waiting for your response David Booth
• Re: David Booth, waiting for your response Gregg Kellogg
• Re: David Booth, waiting for your response David Booth
• David Booth, waiting for your response Manu Sporny
• Turtle recommendation for serialising xsd:string datatype Peter Ansell

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