RE: Latest FOAF version?

BTW, just noticed that object and data properties share common names?

-----Original Message-----
From: Evain, Jean-Pierre 
Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 17:15
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre; 'Yves Raimond'
Cc: Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: Latest FOAF version?

But maybe it's just 'cool'

-----Original Message-----
From: Evain, Jean-Pierre 
Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 17:14
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre; 'Yves Raimond'
Cc: Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: Latest FOAF version?

I can also see reasons why you would duplicates some properties as object and data properties (e..g pointing to a concept or a literal) but this doesn't seem to be justified here...

-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evain, Jean-Pierre
Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 17:11
To: 'Yves Raimond'
Cc: Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: Latest FOAF version?

Can you tell me the purpose of a class class for instance?

Most properties have thing for domain and range?

Many object properties would seem to be more realistically data properties as not linking classes?

....



-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Raimond [mailto:yves.raimond@gmail.com] 
Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 17:06
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: Latest FOAF version?

I honestly don't see what strikes you as bad in this vocabulary?
(apart from maybe the under_score vs. camelCase)

Do you have a more specific list?

y

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
> Look at my other message. I am astounded by what is really behind it.  This is without referring to some battles around the mapping to DC...
>
> - properties linking things to things
> - duplicates inc. with different writing conventions...
>
> A long list of curious things there.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Raimond [mailto:yves.raimond@gmail.com]
> Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 16:36
> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Cc: Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Latest FOAF version?
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
>> Thanks Tobias.
>>
>> Yes, hopefully. No annotation giving a reference to the version and the namespace is still 0.1 ;-)
>
> Well, they can't really change anymore, without breaking all their
> URIs... And 'cool URIs don't change'. I remember Dan Brickley saying
> that FOAF is stuck to version 0.1 for life now :)
>
> A good reason to only use versioned URIs for information resources :)
>
> Best,
> y
>
>>
>> I'll look at that one.
>>
>> Regards, JP
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tobias Bürger [mailto:tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at]
>> Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 11:22
>> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
>> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Latest FOAF version?
>>
>>  Should be here: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/20100809.rdf
>>
>> Am 20.09.2010 11:16, schrieb Evain, Jean-Pierre:
>>> I found .98 but would like the .rdf
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evain, Jean-Pierre
>>> Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 11:13
>>> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
>>> Subject: Latest FOAF version?
>>>
>>> Anyone who can point me to the latest version of FOAF.
>>>
>>> Can't access the technical documentation from the foaf-project page.
>>>
>>> Version 0.9 seems to have most recent changes dating 2007??
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Jean-pierre
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> **************************************************
>>> This email and any files transmitted with it
>>> are confidential and intended solely for the
>>> use of the individual or entity to whom they
>>> are addressed.
>>> If you have received this email in error,
>>> please notify the system manager.
>>> This footnote also confirms that this email
>>> message has been swept by the mailgateway
>>> **************************************************
>>
>> --
>> ================================================================
>> Dr. Tobias Bürger         Knowledge and Media Technologies Group
>> Salzburg Research                           FON +43.662.2288-415
>> Forschungsgesellschaft                      FAX +43.662.2288-222
>> Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/III   tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at
>> A-5020 Salzburg | AUSTRIA         http://www.salzburgresearch.at
>>
>>
>

Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 15:20:19 UTC