RE: RDF document?

> > I always think that this example is misleading. I would prefer to
put
> > the above example in the following way..
> >
> > <foaf:Person>
> > <foaf:name>Dan Brickley</foaf:name>
> > <foaf:workplaceHomepage
rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#anyURI">http://www.w3.org
/</foaf:workplaceHomepage>
> > </foaf:Person>
> 
> Jeremy,
> 
> I agree with you that this is a better way to encode the information.
The  
> W3C's Evaluation and Repair Tools group (Bcc'ed for information) is  
> looking at how to do this for the EARL specification [1], and my
thinking  
> is that what you propose is more correct than simply asserting that an

> rdf:resource is equivalent to the thing that you get from the web at
the  
> corresponding URI.

Charles,

Could you expand on why the second form is preferable please please?

Currently, the rdfs:range of foaf:workplaceHomepage is foaf:Document, so
the current (rdf:resource) form is saying that the resource identified
by the URI http://www.w3.org/ is a document. If I de-reference that URI,
I get a representation of that document, a stream of bytes. That
representation may or may not be the same thing as the document.

Using the second form, the datayped literal, would only be appropriate
if the property was defined as relating the person to the _URI_ of their
workplace's homepage, wouldn't it? Why would that approach be preferable
to the current approach?

Thanks

Pete




 

  

Received on Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:25:13 UTC