The target of foaf:page is a thing, a web page.
If you write a literal string, you are saying the foaf page is that
string. That's not what you want to say.
The web page is
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html> (the thing that the
URI denotes)
not
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html"; (a string, or a URI,
if you wrote it using "http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/
b00b07kw.html"^^xsd:anyURI)
It's not a matter of being for or against it. It's a matter of
writing what you mean.
-Alan
On Jun 21, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
2008/6/22 Richard Cyganiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 21 Jun 2008, at 23:41, Peter Ansell wrote:
<foaf:page>http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html</foaf:page>
Note that in the above notation the page is an actual URL string and
not an RDF resource which is intended because the person already has
the semantic resource and just wants to get to the human readable
version.
Uh.
Peter, the domain of foaf:page is foaf:Document. You can't put an
rdfs:Literal there. This is a rather weird suggestion.
Richard
Sorry about that. Is there any ontology term which can do that?
Why are people so anti putting http URL's in as Literals? If it is an
HTML page that relates to your current semantic "thing" then it seems
reasonable to have it as a literal to me.
Peter
