W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > February 2007


From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:13:56 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org,William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>

Thanks for the follow up. I'm copying Bill Bug, who is the person who 
reported the SKOS/FOAF problem, so he can reply to your questions below.
The tool being used is Protege.

At 10:46 AM 2/26/2007, Dan Brickley wrote:
>Thanks. It certainly ought to be the case that FOAF and SKOS work 
>well together. If someone is having trouble, I would like to find out why.
>That said, I am having trouble understanding the detail of the message.
>http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/20050603.rdf is an archive-only snapshot 
>of FOAF's RDF description, never intended for use as a namespace. 
>Well, people are free to do so, but it would be excessively cautious 
>usage, I think.
>It soulds like they are using some particular toolset. Do you have 
>any more details?
>For example, http://www.dasbistro.com/~sam/raptor.lisp seems to be 
>fixing on that specific URI.
>suggests that URI is being used in Protege circles.
>Could you ask if http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/index.rdf works OK for them?
>Perhaps the problem is with our content negotiation setup. That 
>could well be the case. If you can find out what tool is being used, 
>I could run some tests...
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 04:14:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:49 UTC