W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Use FOAF or schema.org in examples?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:31:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFpQEjBNJV0eVQ-ZPvsBUuu3tpOnwBQQR2wFDUj8fVXa=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 5 Feb 2013 11:03, "Gregg Kellogg" <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>
> 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.

Yes, making per-property pages is on my list...

Dan

> 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 20:32:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:39 GMT