Information for "What's in a name - Part 3 Comment 2"
Basic information
| Display title | What's in a name - Part 3 Comment 2 |
| Default sort key | What's in a name - Part 3 Comment 2 |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,056 |
| Page ID | 693 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
Page protection
| Edit | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Move | Allow all users (infinite) |
Edit history
| Page creator | imported>Denny |
| Date of page creation | 18:37, 27 December 2007 |
| Latest editor | imported>Denny |
| Date of latest edit | 18:37, 27 December 2007 |
| Total number of edits | 1 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Page properties
| Transcluded template (1) | Template used on this page: |
you are totally right - the e … Hi Richard,
you are totally right - the example fails. But I took it on purpose, nevertheless: because humans, when they read the predicate "foaf:interest" will think that it means that Subject is interested in the Object.
You are right - and I point it out in the Blog - it actually means the Subject is interested in the Topic of the Object. But I think this is an (intentional) bug in the FOAF-specification. Intentional in order to make writing FOAF-files easier, a bug nevertheless because it creates a cognitive difference between the expected naive and intented specified use of "foaf:interest".
I wanted to stress this cognitive difference with this example. The second reason for selecting this example is to make the reader wary of such subtle differences and mistakes that can happen everywhere. Anything claimed about the Semantic Web should be taken with care, no matter who claims it!
Thanks for your comments, dennylaims it!
Thanks for your comments,
denny +
