14 Sep 2008 13:31
Re: [foaf-dev] mbox_sha1sum describes only email
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Story Henry <henry.story <at> bblfish.net> wrote:
The problem with doing it like this, is it messes up the range for foaf:mbox and would cause problems for any software hoping to find an actual address as it's object. What we need, instead, is something closer to reification syntax.:
[] a foaf:person;
xxx:hash [
rdfs:subject "foaf:mbox";
xxx:uriChecksum "ssdfsfsfskjlkjl;ksdf1234"]
xxx:hash [
rdfs:subject "foaf:firstName";
xxx:literalChecksum "hjsdfsjhfskjhdfskj"] .
This would allow you to describe any triple by not giving the value of it's object, but by giving the hash of that object. (either uri or literal)
"This person has a mailbox. I don't know what it is, but it's hash is this..."
I don't have the specifics quite right, but hopefully you can see the idea I'm trying to express.
-- Daniel E. Renfer
Note that the foaf:sha1sum solution I am proposing does not take the
On 14 Sep 2008, at 11:44, Earle Martin wrote:
> 2008/9/14 Story Henry <henry.story <at> bblfish.net>
>
>> There are any number of solutions. Another solution would be to use
>> an
>> foaf:sha1sum relation that relates an object to an sha1sum of one of
>> the URIs identifying it.
>>
>
> A while back I put together a vocabulary that allows for relating a
> file to
> its checksum with any particular algorithm:
>
> http://downlode.org/Code/RDF/File_Properties/
>
> At present it explicitly describes the subject of the checksum as a
> file,
> but I can see that you could change it to refer to generic "data",
> which
> could be typed as a file or an email address.
>
> Of course such a solution is probably overkill for most FOAF users,
> but I
> thought it might be of interest.
checksum of the file referenced by the
URL. Your fp:checksum has a domain of foaf:Document. The one I am
proposing here, perhaps better named
xxx:uriChecksum would have a domain of owl:Thing, ie, anything that
can be named.
For example it makes no sense to give a checksum of a person or
mailbox.
[] a foaf:Person;
xxx:uriChecksum "hjsdfsjhfskjhdfskj";
foaf:mbox [ xxx:uriChecksum "ssdfsfsfskjlkjl;ksdf1234" ] .
Now how useful this really is is up for debate. But it would give us a
generalisation of the
foaf:mbox_sha1sum relation .
Henry
The problem with doing it like this, is it messes up the range for foaf:mbox and would cause problems for any software hoping to find an actual address as it's object. What we need, instead, is something closer to reification syntax.:
[] a foaf:person;
xxx:hash [
rdfs:subject "foaf:mbox";
xxx:uriChecksum "ssdfsfsfskjlkjl;ksdf1234"]
xxx:hash [
rdfs:subject "foaf:firstName";
xxx:literalChecksum "hjsdfsjhfskjhdfskj"] .
This would allow you to describe any triple by not giving the value of it's object, but by giving the hash of that object. (either uri or literal)
"This person has a mailbox. I don't know what it is, but it's hash is this..."
I don't have the specifics quite right, but hopefully you can see the idea I'm trying to express.
-- Daniel E. Renfer
_______________________________________________ foaf-dev mailing list foaf-dev@... http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-dev
RSS Feed