Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /kunden/116716_10965/jakoblog.de/wp/wp-content/plugins/mendeleyplugin/wp-mendeley.php on line 548

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /kunden/116716_10965/jakoblog.de/wp/wp-content/plugins/mendeleyplugin/wp-mendeley.php:548) in /kunden/116716_10965/jakoblog.de/wp/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Kommentare zu: Proposed changes in VIAF RDF http://jakoblog.de/2011/04/13/proposed-changes-in-viaf-rdf/ Das Weblog von Jakob Voß Thu, 16 Sep 2021 16:49:32 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.18 Von: jakob http://jakoblog.de/2011/04/13/proposed-changes-in-viaf-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-281610 Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:33:01 +0000 http://jakoblog.de/?p=1011#comment-281610 Thanks for the pointer to URI Identity and Web Architecture Revisited!

]]>
Von: Ed Summers http://jakoblog.de/2011/04/13/proposed-changes-in-viaf-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-281591 Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:30:03 +0000 http://jakoblog.de/?p=1011#comment-281591 Thanks for the blog post, and continuing to try to orient these modeling discussions around actual use. I just have to say, I totally agree re:

There is nothing wrong in declaring an URI like http://viaf.org/viaf/39377930/ to stand for both a foaf:Person, a rdaEnt:Person, and a skos:Concept.

The difficulty in deciding which URI to use is hard enough with Linked Data, and providing yet more opportunities to pick the wrong one isn’t going to help much in my opinion.

]]>