- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:01:20 +0800
- To: <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 06/30/2011 6:09 AM Dave Longley wrote: > If we want to make the property "name" meaningful in the Linked Data > world, it should be part of a vocabulary that explains what a "name" > is. Then "name" should be mapped to a URI that resolves to that > vocabulary. If we want to be able to refer to identifier "605980750" > elsewhere, then it should be replaced with a URI that can be resolved > to a graph that refers to that identifier and, likely, provides more > information about it. Exactly. I couldn't agree more. All I suggested was to have one external document instead of mixing inline constructs (@) and external documents (context doc.) since I think that would have a lot of advantages. Among others it would also clearly address the issues outlined in the property-name scoping discussion. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 11:06:15 UTC