Re: neither FCNS nor FOAFSSL can read a new foaf card (hosted in Azure). RDFa validators at W3C and RDFachecker say its fine...

On 12/28/11 12:54 AM, Peter Williams wrote:
>
> > What URIBurner (a Virtuoso instance with its Linked Data Deployment
> > middlware module enabled) does is generate a proxy/wrapper Linked Data
> > URI because of ambiguity its detects when dealing the the URIs used in
> > your Certs. SAN.
>
>
> Aha. When running sparql, sponging cleans up (formal ambiguities). It 
> there was no ambiguity, the sparql result set would have the original 
> URI as subject name. When forced to clean up, a new profile is screen 
> scraped and given a wrapper URI. In such cases, the sparql is run 
> against a local RDF store, populated with triples from only the proxy 
> profile.
>
> On running the sparql queries against my TTL card, it had no 
> ambiguities, and no proxy profile page was auto-mounted as a store for 
> the query.
>
> In all cases (originally) I used the RDFa from the spec (which had 
> relative names). And, normally, my SAN URIs bear the fragment (except 
> when Im stressing other's implementations).
>
> When posted to blogger, validating sites could read those RDFa foaf 
> cards (embedded in wider content). When posted to my own site, sites 
> cannot work with the same streams. I will assume that somehow 
> Blogger's template cleans up the suggested RDFa, making it palatable. 
> Posted directly as araw  stream on a web site endpoint, the spec's 
> suggested RDfa causes interoperability issues, even though it 
> validates, and appears to be sensible RDFa.

Sorta, the problem is that in the Linked Data realm saying what you mean 
is important. Once ambiguity is introduced (in this particular context) 
a process can opt to stay confused or attempt to sanitize. Ultimately, 
this boils down to Object Theory and the ability it leverage equivalence 
fidelity based on the principle that an Object has Identity that 
distinct from its Representation (values).

What remains a challenge re. Linked Data and the Web is that the 
narrative for explaining how HTTP URIs have been applied to age-old 
Object Theory remains confusing to many. This is why I have a #permarant 
going re. RDF and the lack of genealogy in its narrative. Many treat RDF 
as the Object Theory progenitor without any cross references to Lisp, 
EAV, Linked Data Structures and the like from the past.

Links:

1. 
http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FObject_theory 
-- Object Theory
2. 
http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fclass%2Fyago%2FTheoriesOfDeduCtion 
-- Theories of Deduction
3. https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/posts/U4u4FBmLnvx -- G+ 
post about Distributed Data Objects
4. https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/posts/WjLcqFjUtWJ -- 
Conceptual Hierarchy of Data Objects.
>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen