W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2008

Re: bbc-programmes.dyndns.org

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:17:47 -0400
Message-Id: <E57BA3AD-2469-468C-977A-91C16C9D11F5@gmail.com>
Cc: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Nicholas Humfrey" <Nicholas.Humfrey@bbc.co.uk>, public-lod@w3.org
To: "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter@gmail.com>

The target of foaf:page is a thing, a web page.

If you write a literal string, you are saying the foaf page is that  
string. That's not what you want to say.

The web page is

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html> (the thing that the  
URI denotes)


"http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html"  (a string, or a URI,  
if you wrote it using "http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ 

It's not a matter of being for or against it. It's a matter of  
writing what you mean.


On Jun 21, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:

> 2008/6/22 Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>:
>> On 21 Jun 2008, at 23:41, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>> <foaf:page>http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html</foaf:page>
>>> Note that in the above notation the page is an actual URL string and
>>> not an RDF resource which is intended because the person already has
>>> the semantic resource and just wants to get to the human readable
>>> version.
>> Uh.
>> Peter, the domain of foaf:page is foaf:Document. You can't put an
>> rdfs:Literal there. This is a rather weird suggestion.
>> Richard
> Sorry about that. Is there any ontology term which can do that?
> Why are people so anti putting http URL's in as Literals? If it is an
> HTML page that relates to your current semantic "thing" then it seems
> reasonable to have it as a literal to me.
> Peter
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2008 02:18:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:50 UTC