- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:01:40 -0500
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- CC: "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: > I noticed that Manu and Dave have been replacing most uses of FOAF in the > examples with Schema.org. On one hand, I find that good since probably more > people know about schema.org than about FOAF. On the other hand I find it > strange to use IRIs which do not resolve to anything useful when being > dereferenced; in fact, you'll get a 404. I think using schema.org makes it more relevant to developers. The fact that dereferencing a predicate IRI results in a 404 is a temporary issue, which I believe DanBri is addressing. So, in the long run, it shouldn't be an issue. Gregg > I thus wanted to hear opinions of other people in the group regarding what > we should use in our examples. Since we are talking about Linked Data and > have statements in the spec that IRIs SHOULD resolve to something useful I > think we should live what we preach and use FOAF instead. > > > Cheers, > Markus > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 19:03:26 UTC