- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:10:50 +0100
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJT1HJXGXXVVdzCfLE8NVR1XsJi5w1i98LHifOAYJ3LVw@mail.gmail.com>
On 21 March 2015 at 14:43, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: > > There is a predicate I have used to indicate the URI preferred by the > person or thing involved, for example me. I used it a long time ago. I > don't know whether there are more recent equivalents. I have no idea how > widely it is used if at all. > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact#preferredURI > Thanks Tim, yes I've noticed this one in your profile before. > > It takes a string so that itself does not get caught up in the samAs > smushing. As you say, a little reification is necessary, but only that > > card:i contact:preferredURI " > https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i" . > > or for that matter > > <https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i> > contact:preferredURI > "https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i" . > > The subject can be any node which is owl:sameAs the thing in question. > (Maybe one should also infer samAs from it). > However in the vocab: "A string which is the URI a person, organization, etc, prefers that people use for them" This seems to be limited in scope to people. What if the preferred URI is different to, or more general than a person? > > It would be interesting maybe to build into the rdflib.js way of making > it the preferred when many are smushed together -- rather than as currently > the smallest in alphabetical order. > > Tim > > On 2015-03 -20, at 15:34, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> > wrote: > > when you have a bunch of URIs that are "sameAs" each other > > is there a generic way to indicate which one is preferred > > let's say I have 3 user profiles, one on http, one on https and one that > will be turned off in 6 months > > can I indicate that my preferred was initially http, then my other > provider, and then later https? > > I suspect this will need some reification, is there any pattern for this? > > >
Received on Saturday, 21 March 2015 16:11:18 UTC