Re: RE : RE : Latest FOAF version?

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
> that's actually very interesting.
>
> Protege shos duplicated properties while TopBraid doesn't. The code actually says only data property.

OK - so your editor is making the claim that you find confusing, not
the spec. I am guessing this is due to the InverseFunctional type, see
the following in the OWL spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#InverseFunctionalProperty-def
(FOAF is OWL-Full)

>
> One thing solved although why would protege (4.0) do this is a problem.
>
> Now: any reason why jabberId is an object property with a literal as a range?

In the source RDF/XML, it is only defined as a DatatypeProperty:
<rdf:Property rdf:about="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/jabberID"
vs:term_status="testing" rdfs:label="jabber ID" rdfs:comment="A jabber
ID for something.">
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"/>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal"/>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#DatatypeProperty"/>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#InverseFunctionalProperty"/>
</rdf:Property>

>
> Coming back to another of my issues: many properties  hvae thing as a domain or range like depiction, or depicts or focus that links a Skos concept to a thing, etc. Whta is the idea behind these constructs.

FOAF has a couple of fairly generic relationships, like primary_topic,
focus, depicts, etc. Those are actually very useful, and should
probably make their way into "RDFS+" at some point :-) For example,
depicts links an image (which is some kind of document) to a thing (an
image can depict anything).

>
> I also noted that many things are still under the 'testing' status although the version is .98.
>

Yes, it is still under active development.

Best,
y

>
>
> ________________________________________
> De : Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Date d'envoi : lundi, 20. septembre 2010 21:30
> À : Evain, Jean-Pierre; Yves Raimond
> Cc : Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Objet : RE : RE : Latest FOAF version?
>
> or skypeId or ainChatId or msnChatId...
>
> ________________________________________
> De : Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Date d'envoi : lundi, 20. septembre 2010 21:29
> À : Yves Raimond
> Cc : Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Objet : 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 20:47:30 UTC