[rdfweb-dev] Re: FOAF 0.1: Organized, Explained, Collated, Part One

Edd Dumbill edd at u...
Mon Jul 15 13:37:34 UTC 2002

On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 09:52, Edd Dumbill wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 04:15, Morbus Iff wrote:
> > ><foaf:nick foaf:domain="http://www.icq.com/" rdf:value="2927491" />
> > 
> > I find that much nicer, yes (and, in some
> > degree, better). Dan and Ed, comments?
> yes, it does like nicer. it's pretty much shorthand for what we were
> proposing before. unfortunately my parser of choice doesn't correctly
> parse that construction yet, though i've let the author know.
> also, danbri suggested that we might leave foaf:nick alone and use
> something like foaf:cnick for the more complex property.

hmm, i was too hasty in posting.

dave beckett just pointed out to me that the above construction means
that the value of foaf:domain is a literal, not a URI, when this syntax
is used.

this may or may not be what we really want. my guess is that it's
preferable that the range of foaf:domain is Resource, which counts out
this contraction.

-- Edd

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.usefulinc.com/pipermail/foaf-dev/attachments/20020715/1fe7b7fb/attachment-0001.pgp

More information about the foaf-dev mailing list