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 08:39:14 -0500
Message-ID: <50ACD982.8040303@w3.org>
To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, www-tag@w3.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
On 11/21/2012 08:21 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org 
> <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     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.
>
>
> Note that OGP isn't the only example (although it's the most widely 
> deployed currently), schema.org <http://schema.org> follows the same 
> approach, e.g. using http://schema.org/Person for a page about a 
> person. cc'ing danbri.

Understood.   I didn't mention that because this work pre-dated 
schema.org and I haven't looked closely at their design decisions. But 
going forward, yes, that's an important part of the conversation.

        -- Sandro

>
> Steph.
>
>
>         -- Sandro
>
>
>
>>         Best
>>         Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Steph.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Steph.
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 13:39:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 November 2012 13:39:22 GMT