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

RE : RE : Latest FOAF version?

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:59:01 +0200
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
CC: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010CEEB04608@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Looking at the protege problem (if it is protege that is a problem), I have noted that e.g. icqChatid is also declared as being inverse functional. Fome a protege point of view, i.e. implementation of the RDF/OWL specification, invers functional only applies to object properties. Could it be the reason? Who is right here?



________________________________________
De : Evain, Jean-Pierre
Date d'envoi : lundi, 20. septembre 2010 21:53
À : Evain, Jean-Pierre; Yves Raimond
Cc : Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : RE : RE : Latest FOAF version?

that's actually very interesting.

Protege shos duplicated properties while TopBraid doesn't. The code actually says only data property.

One thing solved although why would protege (4.0) do this is a problem.

Now: any reason why jabberId is an object property with a literal as a range?

Coming back to another of my issues: many properties  hvae thing as a domain or range like depiction, or depicts or focus that links a Skos concept to a thing, etc. Whta is the idea behind these constructs.

I also noted that many things are still under the 'testing' status although the version is .98.



________________________________________
De : Evain, Jean-Pierre
Date d'envoi : lundi, 20. septembre 2010 21:30
À : Evain, Jean-Pierre; Yves Raimond
Cc : Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : RE : RE : Latest FOAF version?

or skypeId or ainChatId or msnChatId...

________________________________________
De : Evain, Jean-Pierre
Date d'envoi : lundi, 20. septembre 2010 21:29
À : Yves Raimond
Cc : Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : RE : RE : Latest FOAF version?

look harder like at icqChatId

________________________________________
De : Yves Raimond [yves.raimond@gmail.com]
Date d'envoi : lundi, 20. septembre 2010 21:25
À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc : Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : Re: RE : Latest FOAF version?

Still confused. So ""http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/jabberID" for example?
It is just a datatype properties - what's the issue with it? Looking
at those properties, I couldn't find one that was typed as both an
object and a datatype property.

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
> for instance all the various ids as object or data properties
>
> ________________________________________
> De : Yves Raimond [yves.raimond@gmail.com]
> Date d'envoi : lundi, 20. septembre 2010 18:32
> À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Cc : Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Objet : Re: Latest FOAF version?
>
>> 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 20:01:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 20:01:36 GMT