- From: Oskar Welzl <lists@welzl.info>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:37:58 +0200
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Cc: wangxiao@musc.edu
Am Dienstag, den 28.08.2007, 12:27 +0100 schrieb Xiaoshu Wang: > Right, that is the point - to make things unambiguous. So, for your > original question. It is not a matter of "can or cannot" but "should or > should not". Probably, yes, ist more of "should" than of "can". This is what I'm trying to find out... good practice. How to be a good semweb citizen. It's true that you *can* use all sorts of stuff, technically. > So, sure, you can use "http://www.flikr.com" to refer both the > community/service and web page as long as you are willing to take that > some machine agent may tell you that the service/community has a colored > background and the web page has some female or male members. I'm not willing to accept this, so I'll have to stick with my original intention of creating a URI other than http://www.flickr.com for flickr, the service. Or, more practical at the moment, use http://oskar.twoday.net/ID/names#thisblog or some similar construct for my weblog, maybe even provide some machine-readable info about the website there. (BTW: is there a somewhat popular ontology to describe websites? like: domain, index page, contact, sitemap,...) Pity, though, that there hardly seems to be an agreement on how to handle this issue, so simply by choosing the above URI myself I will not prevent *others* making statements like <#thismail> mail:sender <http://oskar.twoday.net> when they refer to an update-notification they received from the weblog. > That's my two cents, Thank you, it was a good investment ;) Oskar
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 20:38:15 UTC