- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:48:46 +0200
- To: Damian Steer <d.steer@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Mischa@Garlik" <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Damian Steer wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 19 Sep 2008, at 13:39, Mischa@Garlik wrote: > >> On 19 Sep 2008, at 13:07, me@iandavis.com wrote: >> >>> >>> but by that token you could probably wipe out most of foaf and doap >>> space from the diagram >>> >>> Most of that data is not very linky and many primary resources being >>> described don't have uris >> >> Sure, I am guessing you are talking about foaf:knowing b-nodes, but >> the use of a rdfs:seeAlso with a IFP, should satisfy the notion of >> being "linky", or am I wrong in thinking this? > > I hope you're right, otherwise I'm not sure what 'linking' would be :-) Well for sure, FOAF was designed as a linked information system, with two equally important styles of linking: 1. Reference by URI (ideally well known; ideally de-referencable; and nice if derferencable to a description by everyone through common protocols (http/303, ftp etc) into common formats (rdfa, rdf/xml, xml/html+grddl, rif, owl2, ...) 2. Reference by Descriptions (ideally by IFP and FP; also perhaps by multi-property keys, and also heuristic matching is important). We can't build the Semantic Web without both of these pieces. Anyone who thinks that linking is just (1.) might consider picking another word (I suggest 'hyperlinking'). Dereferencing is a privilege and not a right. There's nothing in FOAF against reference-by-URI, just an acknowledgement that often things don't have well known URIs, and that the business of asserting identifiers for people is heavily politicised. cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/
Received on Friday, 19 September 2008 13:49:43 UTC