W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2012

Re: 'parallel properties' reference?

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 06:49:06 -0500
Message-ID: <50ACBFB2.2030905@w3.org>
To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, www-tag@w3.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
On 11/21/2012 12:17 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Jonathan Rees 
> <jar@creativecommons.org <mailto:jar@creativecommons.org>> wrote:
>
>     Cool!  Thanks to all of you (Stephane, David, Sandro) for all this
>     material. The approach was covered pretty poorly in my issue-57
>     writeup, will amend.
>
>     The idea has come up with some favorable reception in a couple of TAG
>     discussions, so it's useful to have both the pro and con.
>
>
> For the records, could you indicate where the materials above were 
> recorded and discussed by the TAG members? I'm curious to see what 
> progress was made on the 'parallel properties' in relation to the 
> other email I sent about mandating a particular type of URI deployment 
> without an official httpRange-14 resolution.
>
> Steph.
>
>
>     Still not sure exactly what the Facebook connection is, but that
>     doesn't matter too much I guess.
>

I'm coming into the side of this conversation -- I'm not following the 
TAG directly -- I've just had conversations about this with Jeni, Tim, 
and Stéphane recently.   (Sorry for disappearing yesterday, Stéphane.)  
The reference for "parallel properties" that I know of is my original 
blog post and ISWC lightning talk slide:

    http://decentralyze.com/2010/11/10/simplified-rdf/

I'd approach it slightly differently now, but the basic idea is there.  
It came out of trying to handle Facebook's objection to RDF, which was 
that it was too hard for Web developers / Web authors to manage the 
distinctions between strings, datatyped values, URLs for web content, 
and IRIs denoting arbitrary resources.   In the design of the Open Graph 
Protocol they avoided making such distinction.   I thought about that, 
and realized it could still be seen as carrying the same information, if 
one just considers those distinctions embedded into the predicate.

     -- Sandro



>     Best
>     Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Steph.
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 11:49:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 November 2012 11:49:21 GMT