W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Latest FOAF version?

From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:32:01 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=YS6arXUOrFZDW_0BQQdiJM14dkGLtLLGWgRcj@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
Cc: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> I thought the issues I raised looked pretty serious to me and if you open the rdf you will see immediately to which properties it applies...

I did, and I don't.
I am really unsure what properties you're referring to. Maybe the
statements at the top making the ontology OWL-compatible? Or is it
something else?

>
> As I said, MWAG should/could make a profile of it to replace our agent by FOAF's agent and get rd of most of these problems.
>
> Regards, JP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Raimond [mailto:yves.raimond@gmail.com]
> Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 17:20
> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Cc: Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Latest FOAF version?
>
> What? Can you be more specific? Where do you see a property with a
> range of both a resource and a literal? And where do you see a 'class
> Class' (or are you referring to rdfs:Class? In that case, that's not
> really specific to FOAF...)
>
> If you could make a *specific* list, it would be great to feed that
> back to the FOAF mailing list.
>
> y
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
>> I can also see reasons why you would duplicates some properties as object and data properties (e..g pointing to a concept or a literal) but this doesn't seem to be justified here...
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evain, Jean-Pierre
>> Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 17:11
>> To: 'Yves Raimond'
>> Cc: Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Latest FOAF version?
>>
>> Can you tell me the purpose of a class class for instance?
>>
>> Most properties have thing for domain and range?
>>
>> Many object properties would seem to be more realistically data properties as not linking classes?
>>
>> ....
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yves Raimond [mailto:yves.raimond@gmail.com]
>> Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 17:06
>> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
>> Cc: Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Latest FOAF version?
>>
>> I honestly don't see what strikes you as bad in this vocabulary?
>> (apart from maybe the under_score vs. camelCase)
>>
>> Do you have a more specific list?
>>
>> y
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
>>> Look at my other message. I am astounded by what is really behind it.  This is without referring to some battles around the mapping to DC...
>>>
>>> - properties linking things to things
>>> - duplicates inc. with different writing conventions...
>>>
>>> A long list of curious things there.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Yves Raimond [mailto:yves.raimond@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 16:36
>>> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
>>> Cc: Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Latest FOAF version?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
>>>> Thanks Tobias.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, hopefully. No annotation giving a reference to the version and the namespace is still 0.1 ;-)
>>>
>>> Well, they can't really change anymore, without breaking all their
>>> URIs... And 'cool URIs don't change'. I remember Dan Brickley saying
>>> that FOAF is stuck to version 0.1 for life now :)
>>>
>>> A good reason to only use versioned URIs for information resources :)
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> y
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll look at that one.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, JP
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Tobias Bürger [mailto:tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at]
>>>> Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 11:22
>>>> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
>>>> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Latest FOAF version?
>>>>
>>>>  Should be here: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/20100809.rdf
>>>>
>>>> Am 20.09.2010 11:16, schrieb Evain, Jean-Pierre:
>>>>> I found .98 but would like the .rdf
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evain, Jean-Pierre
>>>>> Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 11:13
>>>>> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
>>>>> Subject: Latest FOAF version?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who can point me to the latest version of FOAF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't access the technical documentation from the foaf-project page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Version 0.9 seems to have most recent changes dating 2007??
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jean-pierre
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>> **************************************************
>>>>> This email and any files transmitted with it
>>>>> are confidential and intended solely for the
>>>>> use of the individual or entity to whom they
>>>>> are addressed.
>>>>> If you have received this email in error,
>>>>> please notify the system manager.
>>>>> This footnote also confirms that this email
>>>>> message has been swept by the mailgateway
>>>>> **************************************************
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ================================================================
>>>> Dr. Tobias Bürger         Knowledge and Media Technologies Group
>>>> Salzburg Research                           FON +43.662.2288-415
>>>> Forschungsgesellschaft                      FAX +43.662.2288-222
>>>> Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/III   tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at
>>>> A-5020 Salzburg | AUSTRIA         http://www.salzburgresearch.at
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 16:32:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 16:32:35 GMT