JibberJim: Currently only Star Alliance, but various others being scraped.
JibberJim: Star Alliance data from Reinvented
JibberJim: SVG explorer of the data, using client side RDF parser and airports RDF.
danb_lap: Very nice :)
JibberJim: Star Alliance data from Reinvented
JibberJim: SVG explorer of the data, using client side RDF parser and airports RDF.
danb_lap: Very nice :)
DanC_jam: cwm/n3 question from NormW
DanC_jam: from 1Dec; never got a really good answer. bummer, that; maybe I can rectify.
DanC_jam: from 1Dec; never got a really good answer. bummer, that; maybe I can rectify.
danbri: Why should it? RDF is clear that URIs are names for things. It leaves the rest to... the rest. Why should RDF care, beyond having the notion that URIs denote things?
danbri: As presented, the problem seems ill-motivated. (sorry Sandro!)
larsbot: FWIW, topic maps do distinguish between these two cases, which is the hardest thing about TM/RDF interoperation...
danbri: RDF applications can distinguish things from their representations; or they can muddle them up. RDF doesn't try to do all the work for you...
danbri: ...to continue anthropomorphising "RDF"
danb_lap: I believe http content negotiation provides a nice set of scenarios for exploring these problems. Eg a URI naming an image, with several representations available, each with different sizeInBytes etc.
sandro: (more motivating opening paragraph added.)
dajobe: I don't understand the summary, motivation, ambiguity, your terminology or proposed "solutions". rdf:uri is particularly a bad name
dajobe: most of the FAQs aren't