[rdfweb-dev] Re: FOAF 0.1: Organized, Explained, Collated, Part One

Morbus Iff morbus at d...
Sat Jul 13 14:34:19 UTC 2002

>> <foaf:countrySpecificName>
>> <foaf:CountrySpecificName>
>> <foaf:nickDomain rdf:resource="afghanistan" />
>> <foaf:cnick>you</foaf:cnick>
>> </foaf:CountrySpecificName>
>> <foaf:CountrySpecificName>
>> <foaf:nickDomain rdf:resource="usa" />
>> <foaf:cnick>Miri</foaf:cnick>
>> </foaf:CountrySpecificName>
>> </foaf:countrySpecificName>
>So what? It's not like a person is ever going to be reading it. An
>alternative, perhaps, would be to use the vCard format. Curiously which has
>also got an RDF expression of it.

How many different versions of Mona Lisa are hidden beneath the one we know
and love? Why do we care? Why are we spending all this money to look into
it, when we know that they're not the versions he wanted us to see? Is FOAF
widely adopted? How many FOAF creators, besides Leigh's, do we know? Do you
think 99% of interested people will use Leigh's creator? Do you think a few
people are going to write their own in a normal text editor? Is reading
different than writing (it took me about five minutes to write the block
above)? If we want FOAF to be big, do we want to make an assumption that no
one is ever going to read it? Why is XML in plain text anyways? If it's
only going to be read by computers, why even bother with names that a human
can read? The below is many times faster to write.

<f:nDomain r:rsrc="afghanistan" />
<f:nD r:rsrc="usa" />

Nuclear reactors are bad. Big ass radio towers are bad. But you know what
they're doing with radio towers in our town? They've literally got one
dressed up like a tree - it looks like a really fake tree, but from a
distance it looks real nonetheless. People are more accepting of things
that look good (that whole code shui thing I bitch about once or twice in
every tech mL I'm on), then things that may work better (better reception
without branches).

FOAF, at this point, is "pretty". It's easily readable. It's easy for edd
to write about in a dW article. It's easy for me to say "yeah, this is why
you want to do FOAF, it's easy". The above is just plain ooky, and I
probably wouldn't even mention it in a tutorial (which, of course, gives an
easy hook for others to say "well, then don't!").

But people keep telling me to trust RDF's verbosity. Argh. Can someone beat
into me why something like this wouldn't work? Help me understand I'm
making some newbish RDF mistake.

<foaf:nick rdf:resource="http://www.icq.com/">2927491</foaf:nick>

Morbus Iff ( oh, i wish i was a hoggle )
Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/
Tech: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 - articles and weblog
icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus

More information about the foaf-dev mailing list