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

Re: foaf:openid and validity

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:44:39 +0100
Message-ID: <eb19f3361001241244r27b90a19p8f930217b5c5f345@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthias Quasthoff <matthias--web@quasthoffs.de>
Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Matthias Quasthoff
<matthias--web@quasthoffs.de> wrote:
> Melvin Carvalho schrieb:
>> Your Web ID should be a foaf:Person
>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/WebID
>> and your openid should be a URI
> According to FOAF my openid should be a foaf:Document, and that's my
> problem.
> My Web ID is <http://quasthoffs.de/matthias>. From the semantics of OpenID I
> do not see why <http://quasthoffs.de/matthias> should not be my OpenID. IMHO
> any resource should qualify to be my OpenID.

Yes, this is a case not supported by having foaf:openid's range be
foaf:Document. I'm willing to relax this if the consensus of the
OpenID community is that OpenID URIs (can? always?) directly identify
people, rather than their personas/accounts.

Also note that claim that the class foaf:Person is disjoint with class
foaf:Document doesn't fit with treating tattood people as documents. I
don't think the sky would fall in if we made in non-nonsensical to
assert that something was simultaneously a person and a document.
However I don't look forward to explaining it in the documentation...

Received on Sunday, 24 January 2010 20:45:10 UTC

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