Re: frad:Person and foaf:Person

In message 
<AANLkTi=cNMx-aFdp7+_ed_hCPxJ5OeshKAjJ2ePrz4GG@mail.gmail.com>, Dan 
Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> writes
>
>The original Linked Data note at
>http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html was a gentle critique
>of this idiom, basically saying "give the people http URIs too!". And
>we did!

With the emphasis on "too": a LD URI is simply a peg on which you can 
easily hang a bunch of assertions.  Without those assertions (a) it's 
not giving you anything useful and (b) you have no means of deciding 
whether "your" Richard Light URI refers to the same person as "my" 
Richard Light URI.

>I still have some concerns about the practice of declaring URIs for
>other people, especially living (non-technical!) ones, unless they are
>given some clear 'right of reply' if the associated descriptions are
>inaccurate.

Well, the source of a published URI is clear through the domain 
registration system, so surely the same remedies are available as for 
any other publication medium?

Also, I don't see a scenario occurring where everyone self-publishes 
their "official" URI and associated properties, so I think we are left 
with this situation and just have to deal with it.

>But in the general case there's no doubt that the Linked
>Data emphasis on URIs everywhere was a leap forward; data merging
>based on identifying properties is a huge pain. If we can get a URI
>for each node, a lot of things become simpler.

At some stage the tedious "comparing of properties" task still crops up, 
e.g. when deciding whether two URIs reference the same concept.

Richard
-- 
Richard Light

Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 10:30:49 UTC