- From: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:40:21 +0200
- To: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Much like Renato, I also don't see the problem with multiple namespaces: if you take Dan's message to its logical conclusion, then everything on the Semantic Web should be in a single namespace. In fact, namespaces provide modularization, because addresses are not only relevant to Persons but to other entities. Cheers, Peter Renato Iannella wrote: > > On 19 May 2009, at 19:09, Dan Brickley wrote: > >> But I don't want people to have to use two vocabs for saying pretty >> basic things. > > Is "foaf:myersBriggs" a pretty basic thing? > >> If you want an exact 1:1 representation of vCard, then the >> vcard-in-rdf docs are your best bet. If you want any of the semi-random >> mischief in the FOAF spec, you should also be able to mention an address >> without needing a 2nd namespace... > > > Much, is not all, of the "FOAF Basics" [1] is a repeat of vCard > semantics. > > But if you did not want a second namespace, then reusing ontologies is > a lost cause! > > I thought the Semantic Web / Linked Data was all about this ;-) > > Cheers... Renato Iannella > NICTA > > [1] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 08:42:30 UTC