- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:39:50 +0100
- To: Matthias Quasthoff <matthias--web@quasthoffs.de>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Received on Sunday, 24 January 2010 19:40:19 UTC
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Matthias Quasthoff < matthias--web@quasthoffs.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > just a short question on foaf:openid and validity: I used to have > > ex:me foaf:openid ex:me >> > Your Web ID should be a foaf:Person http://esw.w3.org/topic/WebID and your openid should be a URI (normally without fragment) tho I think openid may have some treatment of fragments, ive not read up fully on that part > > in my FOAF profile, since this is the way I use my identity URI. Since > foaf:openid has range foaf:Document and foaf:Person is disjoint with > foaf:Document, my FOAF profile is unfortunately inconsistent. Is there some > special idea behind > > foaf:openid rdfs:range foaf:Document >> > > - as far as I understood OpenID, it is only about proving URI "ownership" > and plays well with redirects etc. Hence, requiring non-literal range should > be sufficient. This would allow for more flexible solutions than requiring > an OpenID pointing to an information resource about its owner. > > A quick query using SQUIN showed that 71 out of some random 486 FOAF > profiles had foaf:openid triples, but none of these except mine had > subject=object. > > Best, > Matthias > >
Received on Sunday, 24 January 2010 19:40:19 UTC