W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2010

Re: foaf:openid and validity

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:39:50 +0100
Message-ID: <9178f78c1001241139k10d04ab9k87d569be3f2eb8ee@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthias Quasthoff <matthias--web@quasthoffs.de>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
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


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

> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:05 UTC