- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:17:47 -0400
- To: "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Nicholas Humfrey" <Nicholas.Humfrey@bbc.co.uk>, public-lod@w3.org
The target of foaf:page is a thing, a web page. If you write a literal string, you are saying the foaf page is that string. That's not what you want to say. The web page is <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html> (the thing that the URI denotes) not "http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html" (a string, or a URI, if you wrote it using "http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ b00b07kw.html"^^xsd:anyURI) It's not a matter of being for or against it. It's a matter of writing what you mean. -Alan On Jun 21, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Peter Ansell wrote: > > 2008/6/22 Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>: >> On 21 Jun 2008, at 23:41, Peter Ansell wrote: >>> >>> <foaf:page>http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html</foaf:page> >>> >>> Note that in the above notation the page is an actual URL string and >>> not an RDF resource which is intended because the person already has >>> the semantic resource and just wants to get to the human readable >>> version. >> >> Uh. >> >> Peter, the domain of foaf:page is foaf:Document. You can't put an >> rdfs:Literal there. This is a rather weird suggestion. >> >> Richard > > Sorry about that. Is there any ontology term which can do that? > > Why are people so anti putting http URL's in as Literals? If it is an > HTML page that relates to your current semantic "thing" then it seems > reasonable to have it as a literal to me. > > Peter >
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2008 02:18:29 UTC