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 20:47:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFp2n1avj=qV3P_rRQiCXxc=Yz93-iGSz2aCfuZLet3pdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 5 Feb 2013 13:11, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
> 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..

We will continue to use simple slash URIs for schema.org terms, as we do
for the type URIs.

Dan

ps. +1 to having some examples that use multiple vocabularies
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 04:48:02 GMT

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