RE: AW: Literals representing people?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Stickler [mailto:patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 9:06 AM
> To: ext Thomas B. Passin; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: AW: Literals representing people?
> 
> 
> 
> On 2003-09-29 15:42, "ext Thomas B. Passin" 
> <tpassin@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Leo Sauermann wrote:
> > 
> >> Identify people by email address or any other URI (f.e. 
> homepage) but
> >> not using Literals.
> >> 
> > Except - do not use any uri that you might also want to make
> > statements about in its own right, such as a home page.  
> Otherwise, you
> > are back to the ambiguity as to whether the subject is the 
> person or the
> > page (or whatever).  Or be willing to distinguish between 
> the two usages
> > by context, but that makes it much harder to come up with a 
> good domain
> > or range for the relevant properties.
> 
> Right. Use URIs, yes, but make sure not to introduce any
> ambiguity. So don't use the URI of an email account or home
> page directly to denote a person. Either use another URI
> that explicitly denotes the person, or use a blank node
> to indirectly denote the person. E.g.
> 
>    <#me> ex:myFriend _:x .
>    _:x ex:emailAddress <mailto:somebody@example.com> .
> 
> etc. but not
> 
>    <#me> ex:myFriend <mailto:somebody@example.com> .
> 
> where it becomes ambiguous whether your friend is a
> person or a mailbox ;-)

In the interest of economy, is there a way to have the meaning of the first
statement and the brevity of the second? 
<#me> ex:myFriend whose_emailAddress_is_<mailto:somebody@example.com>

> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 10:11:58 UTC