I don't see a reason not to use foaf:name. I agree with Raj that making changes in production could break some current uses. We should poll this list to make sure that we don't adversely affect anyone.
Have you been able to run the template and get output? It would seem that running some output through the W3C RDF validator before moving into production would be a reasonable move. Is there a way I can see a diff of the original template and this update? I'm having trouble envisioning the work/edition relationship in the work record. I guess I can just compare the two visually... kc Quoting raj kumar <[email protected]>: > > On Jan 4, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Ben Companjen wrote: > >> Please have a look (if you can) at >> https://github.com/bencomp/openlibrary/blob/patch-1/openlibrary/plugins/openlibrary/templates/type/work/rdf.html >> and >> https://github.com/bencomp/openlibrary/blob/patch-1/openlibrary/plugins/openlibrary/templates/type/edition/rdf.html >> and comment on it. If all is okay, I will send a pull request. > > I am not a RDF expert, so Karen should be the one commenting about > rdf:value vs foaf:name for authors. > > However, it seems like changing namespaces would potentially break > existing apps that use OL rdf, right? > > -raj -- Karen Coyle [email protected] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet _______________________________________________ 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]
