RE : RE : Latest FOAF version?

look harder like at icqChatId

________________________________________
De : Yves Raimond [yves.raimond@gmail.com]
Date d'envoi : lundi, 20. septembre 2010 21:25
À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc : Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : Re: RE : Latest FOAF version?

Still confused. So ""http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/jabberID" for example?
It is just a datatype properties - what's the issue with it? Looking
at those properties, I couldn't find one that was typed as both an
object and a datatype property.

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
> for instance all the various ids as object or data properties
>
> ________________________________________
> De : Yves Raimond [yves.raimond@gmail.com]
> Date d'envoi : lundi, 20. septembre 2010 18:32
> À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Cc : Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Objet : Re: Latest FOAF version?
>
>> I thought the issues I raised looked pretty serious to me and if you open the rdf you will see immediately to which properties it applies...
>
> I did, and I don't.
> I am really unsure what properties you're referring to. Maybe the
> statements at the top making the ontology OWL-compatible? Or is it
> something else?
>
>>
>> As I said, MWAG should/could make a profile of it to replace our agent by FOAF's agent and get rd of most of these problems.
>>
>> Regards, JP
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yves Raimond [mailto:yves.raimond@gmail.com]
>> Sent: lundi, 20. septembre 2010 17:20
>> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
>> Cc: Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Latest FOAF version?
>>
>> What? Can you be more specific? Where do you see a property with a
>> range of both a resource and a literal? And where do you see a 'class
>> Class' (or are you referring to rdfs:Class? In that case, that's not
>> really specific to FOAF...)
>>
>> If you could make a *specific* list, it would be great to feed that
>> back to the FOAF mailing list.
>>
>> y
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
>>> 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 19:30:21 UTC