All,
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback regarding schema.rdfs.org, both here and
off-list.
This is a collective response to various arguments brought up. I'll paraphrase
the arguments.
Limiting ranges of properties to strings is bad because we LD people might
want to use URIs or blank
All,
The alpha version of omnidator [1] (omnipotent data translator), an
online tool and (CORS-enabled) API to translate formats that use
Schema.org terms into RDF is now available.
Currently only microdata and CSV as input formats are supported, but
others (such as OData) are in the
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de wrote:
That's a good point. The problem is that xsd:string is too narrow and
rdfs:Literal is too broad. RDF 1.1 is likely to define a class of all string
literals (tagged and untagged), we'll use that when its name has
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de wrote:
It's just that the schema.org designers don't seem to care much about the
distinction between information resources and angels and pinheads. This is
the prevalent attitude outside of this mailing list and we should
Alan,
Always a pleasure to hear from you.
On 11 Jun 2011, at 18:55, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
There already exists such a type that is a W3C recommendation. It is
called rdf:PlainLiteral - see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/
I'm not sure why RDF 1.1 working group is not aware of that.
My sincere congratulations, i had someone overlooked at this level of
detail needed here.
The choices are pragmatic and - in my personal opinion having talked
directly at SemTech with a lot of people involved in this - should
serve the community as good as possible.
will you be posting this as a
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 17:55 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
[ . . . ]
http://schema.org/Person is not the same as foaf:Person; one is a
class of documents, the other the class of people.
I don't think that's correct at all. http://schema.org/Person is the
class of people and is equivalent
On 6/11/11 5:55 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
I don't think that's correct at all.http://schema.org/Person is the class of
people and is equivalent to foaf:Person. It's just that the schema.org
designers don't seem to care much about the distinction between information
resources and angels and
On 6/11/11 6:08 PM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
All,
The alpha version of omnidator [1] (omnipotent data translator), an
online tool and (CORS-enabled) API to translate formats that use
Schema.org terms into RDF is now available.
Currently only microdata and CSV as input formats are
On 6/11/11 8:20 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Look, Alan. I've wasted eight years arguing about that shit and defending
httpRange-14, and I'm sick and tired of it. Google, Yahoo, Bing, Facebook,
Freebase and the New York Times are violating httpRange-14. I consider that
battle lost. I recanted.
On Jun 11, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
All,
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback regarding schema.rdfs.org, both here and
off-list.
This is a collective response to various arguments brought up. I'll
paraphrase the arguments.
...
Nothing is gained from the range
On Jun 11, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de
wrote:
That's a good point. The problem is that xsd:string is too narrow and
rdfs:Literal is too broad. RDF 1.1 is likely to define a class of all string
literals
On Jun 11, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
...
It's just that the schema.org designers don't seem to care much about the
distinction between information resources and angels and pinheads. This is
the prevalent attitude outside of this mailing list and we should come to
terms
-Alan
On Jun 11, 2011, at 5:57 PM, David Booth da...@dbooth.org wrote:
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 17:55 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
[ . . . ]
http://schema.org/Person is not the same as foaf:Person; one is a
class of documents, the other the class of people.
I don't think that's correct
David, as you know, it is trivial to distinguish in representation the
difference between an information object and a person. I don't understand
why you keep repeating this misinformation.
-Alan
It is trivial to distinguish between an information resource and the
resource it talks about if
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 19:56 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Jun 11, 2011, at 5:57 PM, David Booth da...@dbooth.org wrote:
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 17:55 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
[ . . . ]
http://schema.org/Person is not the same as foaf:Person; one is a
class of documents, the
16 matches
Mail list logo
