- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:04:54 +0000
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: semantic-web Interest Group <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 4 Dec 2007, at 19:00, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > Steve, > > First, congrats on getting QDOS out! Thanks. It was a bit of a struggle. > And surfacing the RDF! That was less so. > Well, your external interface could munge every URI which passes > though it, for example. > Keeping the data the same. I'd rather not put any hacks in the SPARQL interface, it would also be confusing. I think we've got a plan which means not changing any existing RDF URIs, just moving the HTML version of the profile. >> Users get a rdf:type foaf:Person triples, celebs get rdf:type >> q:Celebrity, which should be a subClassOf foaf:Person, but I've not >> got round to adding that to the schema. The URI of the graph is the >> same as the URI of the person. That's slightly odd, > > It is broken. I am not a graph! :-) > To use the same URI for different things is not odd, it is broken. So... is it actually a problem to have the URI for the person and the graph be the same? I get that conflating the data about the person and the person is broken, but I'm not really sure what the significance of the graph's URI is. My proposal was: GRAPH ?person { ?person :name ?x ?person :extraData [ dc:date ... ; ] } Which still conflates the graph and person, but not data and person. - Steve
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 22:05:12 UTC