David, as you know, it is trivial to distinguish in representation the
difference between an information object and a person.
Correct. And that distinction is important to some apps and not to
others.
I am glad we agree. We also agree that what is important is not
germane to the technical
On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Lin Clark lin.w.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
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
Alan,
Again, this strikes me as speaking from very little experience. I
spend a good deal of my time collaboratively developing ontologies and
working with users of them. I've yet to encounter a person who didn't
understand the difference between a book about Obama and Obama.
Welcome to
On 6/12/11 11:12 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Again, this strikes me as speaking from very little experience. I
spend a good deal of my time collaboratively developing ontologies and
working with users of them. I've yet to encounter a person who didn't
understand the difference between a book
On 6/12/11 1:00 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Here is the problem, as I know it. We are using hyperlinks as a
mechanism for data representation via HTTP URI based Names. The URI
abstraction caters for two things: Names and Addresses. When trying to
untangle the unintuitive nature of HTTP URIs
Great job!
Thanks. Not a real competitor to URIBurner, though ;)
Little note, please tweak your Microdata tools description of the
Virtuoso Sponger since URIBurner.com [1] delivers the same
functionality of omnidator across the formats you mention + OData
etc.. Alternatively, you can
On 12 June 2011 01:51, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
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
Again, this strikes me as speaking from very little experience. I
spend a good deal of my time collaboratively developing ontologies and
working with users of them. I've yet to encounter a person who didn't
understand the difference between a book about Obama and Obama.
My experience is
On 6/12/11 1:38 PM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
Great job!
Thanks. Not a real competitor to URIBurner, though ;)
No worried about competition though, always want as much clarity as
possible, the cake is simply too large for any of us to be preoccupied
with competition, that's what makes
Hi Pat,
On 12 Jun 2011, at 00:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
Nothing is gained from the range assertions. They should be dropped.
They capture a part of the schema.org documentation: the “expected type” of
each property. That part of the documentation would be lost. Conversely,
nothing is gained by
On 12 Jun 2011, at 00:51, Pat Hayes wrote:
Well, I am sympathetic to not defending HTTP-range-14 and nobody ever, ever
again even mentioning information resource, but I don't think we can just
make this go away by ignoring it. What do we say when a URI is used both to
retrieve, um sorry,
On 6/12/11 2:26 PM, Lin Clark wrote:
Again, this strikes me as speaking from very little experience. I
spend a good deal of my time collaboratively developing ontologies and
working with users of them. I've yet to encounter a person who didn't
understand the difference between
On 12 Jun 2011, at 11:12, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
I've yet to encounter a person who didn't understand the difference between a
book about Obama and Obama.
This has nothing to do with books about Obama.
It's about the difference between an URI-named resource which can return, say,
a JSON
On 11 Jun 2011, at 21:21, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
will you be posting this as a FAQ i think its definitely worth it.
Good idea, thanks. Some of the answers are now here:
http://schema.rdfs.org/faq.html
Richard
Gio
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de
On 6/12/11 3:42 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
On 12 Jun 2011, at 11:12, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
I've yet to encounter a person who didn't understand the difference between a
book about Obama and Obama.
This has nothing to do with books about Obama.
It's about the difference between an URI-named
On 12 June 2011 16:26, Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de wrote:
Hi Pat,
On 12 Jun 2011, at 00:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
Nothing is gained from the range assertions. They should be dropped.
They capture a part of the schema.org documentation: the “expected type” of
each property. That part of
On Jun 12, 2011, at 7:36 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
On 12 Jun 2011, at 00:51, Pat Hayes wrote:
Well, I am sympathetic to not defending HTTP-range-14 and nobody ever, ever
again even mentioning information resource, but I don't think we can just
make this go away by ignoring it. What do we
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
but the serious problem with this idea is, that it makes it impossible to
simply refer to these information resources themselves. So we would be unable
to talk about Web pages using the Web description language RDF.
That seems
On 12 Jun 2011, at 18:34, Pat Hayes wrote:
What do we say when the range of a property is supposed to be, say, people,
but its considered OK to insert a string to stand in place of the person?
Well, I can define a class that contains both people (in the foaf:Person
sense) and names of
(there will be some isomorphism between a thing and a description of a
thing, right?
Absolutely not. Descriptions are not in any way isomorphic to the things they
describe. (OK, some 'diagrammatic' representations can be claimed to be, eg
in cartography, but even those cases don't stand up
On Jun 12, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
On 12 Jun 2011, at 18:34, Pat Hayes wrote:
What do we say when the range of a property is supposed to be, say,
people, but its considered OK to insert a string to stand in place of the
person?
Well, I can define a class that contains
On 06/12/2011 08:19 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Danny,
On 12 Jun 2011, at 17:57, Danny Ayers wrote:
We explicitly know the “expected types” of properties, and I'd like to keep
that information in a structured form rather than burying it in prose. As
far as I can see, rdfs:range is the
On Jun 12, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
(there will be some isomorphism between a thing and a description of a
thing, right?
Absolutely not. Descriptions are not in any way isomorphic to the things
they describe. (OK, some 'diagrammatic' representations can be claimed to
be, eg
On 13 June 2011 02:28, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Next point: there can indeed be correspondences between the syntactic
structure of a description and the aspects of reality it describes.
That is what I was calling isomorphism (which I still don't think was
inaccurate). But ok, say there
{
id: 605980750,
name: Kingsley Uyi Idehen,
first_name: Kingsley,
middle_name: Uyi,
last_name: Idehen,
link: https://www.facebook.com/kidehen;,
username: kidehen,
gender: male,
locale: en_US
}
Some observations:
id attribute has value 605980750, this value means
25 matches
Mail list logo
