W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:53:37 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTinL6WAbj8L0f7DVL2Wnhy1kfmXcGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> but the serious problem with this idea is, that it makes it impossible to simply refer to these information resources themselves. So we would be unable to talk about Web pages using the Web description language RDF.

That seems too strong.

Just thinking about this alternative - that 200 responders (for the
purposes of linked data) are not considered IRs.
Instead 200 implies an assertion (for, say, http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/)

_:foo a :information-thing
_:foo :at "http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/"^^xsd:anyURI

(there exists an information resource accessible at
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/)

to which could then be asserted in your favored syntax:

_:page a :web-page
_:page :at "http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/"^^xsd:anyURI
_:page dc:creator <http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/>

This effectively flips what is now the default (you would use, e.g.
foaf:primaryTopic to go in the opposite direction)

Not that I'm advocating this. For one thing there are many information
thinks that couldn't possibly be understood as designators. (well,
shouldn't ;-)

-Alan
Received on Sunday, 12 June 2011 17:54:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:54 UTC