Fwd: [pedantic-web] Re: [foaf-dev] [FOAF spec revised] foaf:logo aninverse-functional-property?

I was going to say that 200 responses to GETs of URIs that name members of
foaf:Document were OK... guess not. Need to look for other examples.

Jonathan

Forwarded conversation
Subject: [pedantic-web] Re: [foaf-dev] [FOAF spec revised] foaf:logo
aninverse-functional-property?
------------------------

From: *Axel Polleres* <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:08 PM
To: Aidan Hogan <aidan.hogan@deri.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, foaf-dev Friend of a <
foaf-dev@lists.foaf-project.org>


Dan, Aidan, all,


> >     * index.rdf: removed some false disjointness claims: people can be
> > documents (tatoos);
>

I have to admit that really causes me major pain ...


> ...anything to do with [6]? Or perhaps you've just been watching re-runs
> of Prison Break :).


> people can be documents (tatoos);


the person is not the tattoo, the tattoo is *on* the person or on its body,
that's quite
something different, IMO! I think that Aidan's slide at [6] was definitly
meant as a joke...

It reminds me of the endless discussion why people shouldn't use their
homepage as their identifier...
because the homepage is not a person... and that's that, I think actually
it's good like that.

In whole, I think the disjointness between docs and persons totally makes
sense (and helps us
to find nonsense in linked data!):

By which community influence has this change been justified?
Please don't remove it!

Thanks,
Axel



On 11 Aug 2010, at 00:22, Hogan, Aidan wrote:

> > I've just committed a revision to the FOAF spec. It's dated 9th August
> > and minor tweaks are (as usual) quite likely for the next ~24 hours.
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> CC'ing the pedantic-web mailing list [might be some useful opinions on
> there about the first issue].
>
> >     * index.rdf: foaf:logo is an Inverse Functional Property now"
>
> This worries me somewhat in that foaf:logo is already in widespread use
> and I can think of examples where this might cause problems. For example
> consider the logo of "The Coca-Cola Company" and "Coca-Cola" the
> product: they're feasibly the same, no? For me, even if I knew foaf:logo
> was an inverse-functional-property (and only assuming I had one
> Coca-Cola logo image), I'd have a hard time deciding which deserved it
> more: the company or the product.
>
> For me, inverse-functional-property declarations should be completely
> watertight: otherwise, the Web will find ways to create
> counter-examples. From [1], I managed to find one or two groups of
> resources which share logos and aren't really the same [2,3] -- one
> could argue that these usages of (the previously vague) logo property
> were valid at the time. (That said, I also managed to find some
> resources that share logos that are equivalent.)
>
> Any thoughts on this? If you do leave foaf:logo as
> owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, you should look at updating [4] with some
> discussion.
>
> I have one other *small* issue might be worth looking at for the next
> version of FOAF, relating to rdfs:label values for terms. This is
> perhaps being way too pedantic, but any chance of making the labels more
> consistent in terms of presentation. For example, foaf:surname currently
> has uppercase "Surname", and foaf:givenName has "Given name", whereas
> foaf:lastName has "lastName". This makes domain-agnostic rendering of
> FOAF a little prettier [5]... not by any means a priority of course.
>
> Also couldn't resist asking:
>
> >     * index.rdf: removed some false disjointness claims: people can be
> > documents (tatoos);
>
> ...anything to do with [6]? Or perhaps you've just been watching re-runs
> of Prison Break :).
>
> Cheers,
> Aidan
>
> [1]
> http://lod.openlinksw.com/sparql?default-graph-uri=&should-sponge=&query
> =SELECT+%3Fs1+%3Fs2+%3Fo+%3Fc1+%3Fc2+WHERE+{GRAPH+%3Fc1+{%3Fs1+foaf:logo
> +%3Fo+.}+GRAPH+%3Fc2{+%3Fs2+foaf:logo+%3Fo}+FILTER(%3Fs1+!%3D+%3Fs2)}&fo
> rmat=text/html&debug=on&timeout=
>
> [2]
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ro/rdf
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/rdf
>
> [3]
> http://data.openlinksw.com/oplweb/product_family/development#this
> http://data.openlinksw.com/oplweb/product_family/professionalservices#th
> is
> http://data.openlinksw.com/oplweb/product_family/uda#this
> http://data.openlinksw.com/oplweb/product_family/utilities#this
> http://data.openlinksw.com/oplweb/product_family/virtuoso#this
>
> [4] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_logo
>
> [5]
> http://swse.deri.org/detail?focus=http://sw.deri.org/~aidanh/foaf/foaf.r
> df%23Aidan_Hogan
>
> [6] http://www.slideshare.net/aidhog/weaving-the-pedantic-web-ld (slide
> 21)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-dev mailing list
> foaf-dev@lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-dev
>


----------
From: *Nathan* <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:34 AM
To: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com
Cc: Aidan Hogan <aidan.hogan@deri.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>,
foaf-dev Friend of a <foaf-dev@lists.foaf-project.org>


snap - by that reasoning people can be makeup, clothes, a bandage.. and just
to throw in an example, what if the tattoo is a logo of a product/company,
or of another person? are we now saying that a person isn't a person but is
in fact an image of gandalf from lotr and therefore is also gay and friends
with hobbits. IMO that sentence doesn't need the 'IMO' the tattoo is on the
person, and that's all there is to it - person hasa tattoo, not person isa
tattoo