W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2004

Asunto: Re: [www-rdf-interest] <none>

From: <frozados@fibertel.com.ar>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:59:37 -0300
Message-ID: <3FD1D3460000EBFD@mta3.fibertel.com.ar>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Jeroen Budts" <jeroen@lightyear.be>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hello. I couldn't underestand the usability of XFN. I read some articles
about XFN from http://gmpg.org/xfn/join.

I read a few articles about FOAF and i underestand the usability but i couldn't
the matching between FOAF and XFN.

thanks,
Federico.

>-- Mensaje original --
>Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:04:20 -0500 (EST)
>From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
>To: Jeroen Budts <jeroen@lightyear.be>
>Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
>Subject: Re: [www-rdf-interest] <none>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Jeroen Budts wrote:
>>I'm still working on my FOAF file and have another question. To give
>>some extra information about the persons I know (foaf:knows) I want to
>>add XFN [1]. XFN describes some values which can be used in the @rel
>>attribute of XHTML elements. I know the rel attribute, as XFN uses it,
>>is http://gmpg.org/xfn/1#rel. So is it valid then to declare a prefix,
>>by example xfn, for the namespace http://gmpg.org/xfn/1 and use
>>xfn:rel as a property for a foaf:Person?
>
>Yes, I think you can do this. It seems to be what the document you referred
>to suggests in its last paragraph. (Assuming that it is a sensible use
of
>the
>rel property :-)
>
>An interesting problem is whether to adapt something like this, or to
>re-define it yourself. If you take the former appraoch then you either
don't
>write a schema, so people can't find what you did, or you have the
>possibility that several people will each write a schema for a term whose
>URI
>they don't own, and there may be conflicting statements.
>
>If you make up your own version, we end up with a million schemas which
are
>likely to have ppor interoperability - even with the core elements of dublin
>core we can see that establishing interoperability among a large group
of
>humans is difficult. If they all invent their own somewhat nuanced terms
>and
>claim they are "similarTo" something else, we will have a very fuzzy semantic
>web. That may be a good thing of course - the knowledge we try to represent
>is, except in a few cases, somewhat fuzzy itself.
>
>Cheers
>
>Chaals
>


________________________________________
FiberTel, el nombre de la banda ancha http://www.fibertel.com.ar
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 10:02:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:04 GMT