On 6/8/2010 7:19 PM, Ross Singer wrote [snip]
> Interesting you consider RDF/FOAF a "band-wagon", considering FOAF > predates JSON (outside of merely being considered "a subset of > JavaScript"). It might also be considered "a ranklable offense" to > disparage RDF simply because you don't understand it or it's not > useful to you. Do the JSON and XML serializations require this level > of justification? Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I think OL's decision to use JSON, not merely as a data transfer format but also as a data storage format, to be probably the most ill-advised decision it has ever made. I suspect that the decision was made almost exclusively as a "band-wagon," and had this kind of spirited debate occurred at that time we would have had a much more robust data set with fewer duplicates. As it happens, I am becoming convinced that "foaf:person" and the "foaf" name variations are probably the best choice for encapsulating personal information in OL RDF, and I am arriving at that conclusion primarily because of the information and arguments made here. Debate is good. Questioning assumptions is good. Trying to identify your consumer and his/her/its needs is good. Unquestioning acceptance of the latest fad is bad. That having been said, I think the best way to encode dates of birth and death should be: <bio:Birth> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime";>[some date]</dc:date> </bio:Birth> <bio:Death> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime";>[some date]</dc:date> </bio:Death> Would someone like to talk me out of this now? _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
