Search by property

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

List of results

• Meine Arbeit  + ( * )
• Essener Spielemesse, Teil 2  + ( * )
• What is a good ontology? Comment 3  + (1) Harry Potter are supposed to be only seven books in the end, and 2) even when it would be wrong. ... Ok, I shut up.)
• What's in a name - Part 6 Comment 1  + (A great series of posts. I've always used … A great series of posts. I've always used URIs for all my resources but was begning to question my judgement after seeing widespread use of rdf:nodeID in foaf. One of the potential applications for foaf, in my opinion, is aggregation and linking across multiple models. I've been scratching my head on how they plan on avoiding nodeID collisions? Also, have you looked at the Joseki project? What are your thoughts on the RDFWeb API (especially data objects) described there?(especially data objects) described there?)
• Property:Foaf:name  + (A name for some thing or agent.)
• Property:Foaf:knows  + (A person known by this person (indicating some level of reciprocated interaction between the parties).)
• Garden State Comment 1  + (Allein wegen des Hauptdarstellers (wir erinnern uns an *Scrubs*) lohnt es sich ja, den Film anzusehen. Obwohl mich die Story jetzt vom Lesen noch nicht vom Hocker haut. Aber das gibt sich sicher ;))
• Angelina Jolie wird 30 Comment 4  + (Danke, ja, es ist sehr deutlich. Eine 18jährige Angelina Jolie -- das Video ist ja von '93.)
• Denny macht Milchreis Comment 1  + (Das "dämliche Ding" weiß deshalb nicht, dass heute Feiertag ist, weil Heilige Drei König nur noch in BaWü, Bayern und Sachsen-Anhalt Feiertag ist.)
• Angelina Jolie wird 30 Comment 1  + (Das fragliche Video mit Angelina ist "Rock ’n’ Roll Dreams Come Through")

• Abflug Comment 1  + (Das wird es. Da bin ich mir sicher - geniesse es! Vor allem Ostern...!)

• FOAF browser Comment 1  + (Denny, http://borho.net/foafer/ isn't a web site of my own !! But a FOAF blowser which I know. FOAFer's webmaster is Martin Borho ;-))
• Bologna la dotta Comment 6  + (Ermmm, ernsthaft? Dafür klang der Eintrag aber viel zu gut auf den anderen abgestimmt. Oder sollen wir hier veräppelt werden? Ich hoffe nicht, denn das Internet ist eine ernsthafte Angelegenheit :-P)
• Rollenspiel und Web 2.0 Comment 1  + (Geschichtenerzählen 2.0 ... toller Vergleich ^^)
• What's in a name - Part 4 Comment 1  + (Good writeup! A couple of points: The "ov … Good writeup! A couple of points: The "overloaded fragment identifier" problem is not really much of a problem. The URI http://semantic.nodix.net/person#Plato can very well be both "a section about Plato in a web page" and "an RDF resource representing Plato in an RDF document". When a web browser asks for the URL, it can be served the web page; when a semantic web agent asks, it can be served the RDF document (through HTTP content negotiation), thus pretty much avoiding the problem. I'd argue that the anonymous node approach is the right one in many cases. Often, there's no requirement for your stuff being referencable from the outside. In these cases, using anonymous nodes is fine and may save some headaches. In the long run, maybe there will be sites publishing directories with RDF information about movies or philosophers. Maybe there will be a search engine that lets you search for URIs representing those concepts. Then you can simply use that URI, and don't have to make up your own. You're mixing up foaf:interest and foaf:topic_interest. The former simply doesn't have the meaning you assume in your examples. Arguably, the FOAF people should have defined them differently, but there's nothing we can do about this now. I'm looking forward to the last two parts of your series.ward to the last two parts of your series.)
• Kleeblatt Versand Comment 1  + (Hallo! Heute hatte ich Post vom Kleeblatt … Hallo! Heute hatte ich Post vom Kleeblatt Versand im Briefkasten.. Spasseshalber rubbelte ich die Felder auf, und siehe da, ich habe zwei mal gewonnen! Als ich dann laß, daß man eine 0190er Nummer anrufen müsse, die 1,99/Min kostet, dachte ich, sind die denn total besch... Denken die man ist so blöd und gibt mal eben 14,- Euro für einen Anruf aus, der 6,55 min dauern soll und wo man vorher nicht weiß, was man überhaupt gewonnen hat? Nee! Das "Kleeblättchen" fliegt gleich in den Müll! In meinen Augen ist das Abzocke pur!!!ll! In meinen Augen ist das Abzocke pur!!!)
• What is a good ontology? Comment 1  + (Harry Potter is an excellent example of a good ontology.)
• Wetten, dass... Comment 1  + (Hart. Hast Du das selbst geschrieben? Wow.)
• Unique Name Assumption Comment 1  + (Hi Denny! Nice little essay. I aggree that … Hi Denny! Nice little essay. I aggree that the unique name assumption would not be a good choice for the semantic web, since we would all have to agree on a common vocabulary for everything before we could even start putting semantic information on the web. However, I do not understand why inverse functional properties would break with the unique name assumption. In foaf persons are identified with the hash value of their email addresses. With the unique name assumption, we would not be allowed to use two different URIs for the same person. Hence we would not need inverse functional properties and the problem would not occur in the first place. Greetings, Benoccur in the first place. Greetings, Ben)
• What's in a name - Part 4 Comment 2  + (Hi Richard, Thank you a lot for making th … Hi Richard, Thank you a lot for making the first comment to Semantic Nodix! :) About your thoughtful points: I don't like to use content negotiation in order to get the right resource (or rather, representation of a resource, which itself is a resource again). I prefer getting explicitly the resource I asked for, and I feel like that's why URLs are there for: to locate one specific resource. That's why I try to avoid that way. Anonymous nodes. My only reason against them is that they are not referenceable. You say, most of the time that's ok - I'd claim, well, most of the time you can't know if maybe someone will want to reference it in the future. Why making it impossible? Actually making URIs is very cheap (well, making good URIs isn't, but that's the point of this blogging series), so why not give a reference to every node? The web grew the way it did because we did not claim beforehand to know which resources need to be adressible and which not. It would be a totally different web today if the majority of resource out there were not adressable. Your last point was answered in the blog and comments of the previous part. Thanks on your comments, dennyious part. Thanks on your comments, denny)
• What's in a name - Part 3 Comment 2  + (Hi Richard, 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)