Re: [foaf-dev] Wishlists / requests for next rev of FOAF spec?

Hi Dan,

On 06/12/2012 09:26 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 12 June 2012 09:16, Bob Ferris<[email protected]>  wrote:
>
>> +1 for upgrading the majority of these terms to stable. However, I would
>> exclude the homepage relations (foaf:schoolHomepage and
>> foaf:workplaceHomepage), because one would rather link a workplace and/or
>> school resource today (which can even have a more detailed description),
>
> A major appeal of these two is deployment simplicity in the newly
> standardised RDFa Lite (which btw pre-declares the 'foaf:' prefix).
>
> <div typeof="foaf:Person">
> <a href="http://danbri.org/"
>    property="foaf:homepage">I</a>  attended
>    <a href="http://learning.westergate.w-sussex.sch.uk/"
>    property="foaf:schoolHomepage">Westergate</a>  school,
>    and work at<a href="http://www.vu.nl/"
>    property="foaf:workplaceHomepage">VU Amsterdam</a>.
> </div>
>
> Try pasting that into http://rdfa.info/play/ and you get
>
> @prefix rdf:<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>  .
> @prefix foaf:<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>  .
>
> _:1
>     rdf:type foaf:Person;
>     foaf:homepage<http://danbri.org/>;
>     foaf:schoolHomepage<http://learning.westergate.w-sussex.sch.uk/>;
>     foaf:workplaceHomepage<http://www.vu.nl/>  .
>
> ... since we care about linked data, more information about those
> institutions ought to be available from their homepages; we don't need
> to fully describe them each time.
>
> How would this look if the orgs were described directly inline?

Of course, for simplicity purpose, it is preferable to model it 
directly. In general, it's more a matter of style and scaling, i.e., the 
trade-off between modelling something directly in a relation or 
indirectly by utilising a relation to the resource first.
At the end one could also of course provide somehow and somewhere both 
ways and connect them with the help of, e.g., the Property Reification 
Vocabulary [1] ;)

Cheers,


Bo


[1] http://purl.org/ontology/prv/core#