- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:57:11 +0100
- To: "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
On 1 Apr 2008, at 23:15, Peter Ansell wrote: > One more point... In general I think that any community which relies > on inverse reasoning to determine identity is not Linked Data per > their avoidance of point 1. Even if the FOAF Spec recommends that you > give yourself a URI, if you don't use others URI's and if they don't > use yours, then there is a problem. Generic links according to Point 4 > shouldn't be used to make up for the deficit in implementation of > Point 1 IMO. Technically I agree. I have to say though: Please let's focus on doing the right thing in our own data sources, and on providing end-user value based on well-interlinked data. At the moment it would be hard to approach, say, LiveJournal, and tell them to fix their FOAF and add URIs for people. This wouldn't create any practical benefit for them or their users at the moment, so why should they care? This will change when there are some apps that do something really appealing BASED ON MY URI. (And I mean appealing to end-users.) So let's focus on those apps. > Also, links to foaf.rdf files aren't Cool URI's as they include the > file format in the URI ;-) Remember that most people consider messing around with Apache configuration files as extremely uncool, and RDF with a .rdf extension is certainly cooler than no RDF at all. You're absolutely right technically, I just disagree about priorities in communication. Richard > > > Peter >
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 09:58:06 UTC