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

Re: Use FOAF or schema.org in examples?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:10:30 -0500
Message-ID: <51117546.2000908@openlinksw.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 2/5/13 1:49 PM, Markus Lanthaler 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 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
>
>
>
>
I encourage you to use hash URIs. You can cross reference these URIs in 
a manner that unveils the broader utility of Linked Data and shared 
vocabularies etc..

Links:

1. http://bit.ly/UydU9t -- simple SPARQL based data integration note (I 
even stay away from prefixes when making simple demos) .
2. http://bit.ly/Xk333m -- basic Turtle exercise .
3. http://bit.ly/VaX0zx -- Turtle tutorials collection (all of these use 
simple documents and hash URIs) .

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 21:10:52 GMT

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