- From: Hamish Harvey <hamish@hamishharvey.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:35:42 +0100
- To: "Knud Hinnerk Möller" <knud.moeller@deri.org>
- Cc: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, "Damian Steer" <damian.steer@hp.com>, semantic-web@w3c.org
On 25/07/06, Knud Hinnerk Möller <knud.moeller@deri.org> wrote: > * in the foaf:interest example the wikipedia URL obviously identifies the > page, as Damian pointed out, but then you'd still need to say what the > foaf:topic of the page is, because if we have > * Danny foaf:interest > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework> > . and > * Knud foaf:interest <http://www.w3.org/RDF/> . Presumably you can strongly encourage people (e.g. in the FOAF docs; I haven't looked) to prefer pages from e.g. Wikipedia over some arbitrary even if apparently canonical page. If the page isn't there, add it. > * then how could anyone (without a human brain) know that we are both > interested in RDF? This could only be inferred if we also say: > * > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework> > foaf:topic <nice.uri.for.RDF> . and > * <http://www.w3.org/RDF/> foaf:topic <nice.uri.for.RDF> . Besides, what's wrong with saying, without using another URI: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework> foaf:topic _:rdf . <http://www.w3.org/RDF/> foaf:topic _:rdf . ? Another concern is the drift in meaning of assertions you'll get using something like Wikipedia to provide a "controlled" vocabulary. When I assert _:me foaf:interest <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...> . I really mean I have an interest which is described by that page at the time the assertion was made. Probably not such an issue in geek space with well defined technologies. Hamish -- Hamish Harvey Research Associate, School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 17:36:00 UTC