Re: RDF document?

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 14:27:15 +0200, Pete Johnston <p.johnston@ukoln.ac.uk>  
wrote:

>> > <foaf:Person>
>> > <foaf:name>Dan Brickley</foaf:name>
>> > <foaf:workplaceHomepage
> rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#anyURI">http://www.w3.org
> /</foaf:workplaceHomepage>
>> > </foaf:Person>
>>
> The
>> W3C's Evaluation and Repair Tools group (Bcc'ed for information) is
>> looking at how to do this for the EARL specification [1], and my
>> thinking
>> is that what you propose is more correct than simply asserting that an
>> rdf:resource is equivalent to the thing that you get from the web at
>> the corresponding URI.
>
> Charles,
>
> Could you expand on why the second form is preferable please please?
>
> Currently, the rdfs:range of foaf:workplaceHomepage is foaf:Document, so
> the current (rdf:resource) form is saying that the resource identified
> by the URI http://www.w3.org/ is a document. If I de-reference that URI,
> I get a representation of that document, a stream of bytes. That
> representation may or may not be the same thing as the document.

Yeah, reading this and Dan's explanation it seems that the FOAF case is  
different from the EARL case, and that for the foaf properties it does  
make sense to use a resource. The EARL use case is talking explicitly  
about the document you get when you de-reference the URI, and the URI is  
therefore only one key property for determining what that is (along with  
dates, HTTP negotiation informantion, etc).

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                              chaals@opera.com
          hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
   Here's one we prepared earlier:   http://www.opera.com/download

Received on Saturday, 11 June 2005 13:37:34 UTC