[expertfinder-dev] Re: Expertise and Trust Vocabs

[Alexandre Passant]

Hi all,

On 6/27/07, Tom Heath <tom.heath at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Axel has mentioned that we should extend expressiveness of foaf:knows
>
> Hmm, I'm not so sure. Creating another vocabulary to complement FOAF
> by defining some additional and more expressive relations (that have
> foaf:Person as domain and range) sounds fine, but lets not try and
> overload FOAF with extra relationship semantics. We can (and should)
> do this Web-style, by linking vocabularies.
>
Have you look at the relationship vocabulary ? [1]
It already defines useful relationships as collegues / mentor /
collaborators ... that can be used to find related experts, in
combination with the trust notion, eg: look for mentors / collegues
once you have found an expert with the trust / topic relationship.

>
> I'm not sure if you've seen my draft Hoonoh ontology Andreas. It takes
> a slightly different approach, but fulfils the same kind of role. For
> example, using the ExpertiseRelationship class and associated
> properties one can describe an expertise relationship between a
> foaf:Person and a Topic (hoonoh:Topic, subclass of skos:Concept), and
> assign this relationship a value. I hope that it's a relatively clean
> bit of modelling, but would be pleased to get feedback.
One thing that must be thinked about is also provenance of each
ExpertiseRelationship statements. Once in general it is useful to have
this for any RDF statements this is even more true here, when dealing
with trust.
Eg, I can say that X is expert in Y at 0.8 but one may think he's only 0.2.
Don't we need a definedBy property ? (w/ hoonoh:ExpertiseRelationship
as domain and foaf:Person as range), or the inverse, eg
definesRelationship

Regards,

Alex.

[1] http://vocab.org/relationship/