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

Jim Ley jim at j...
Sat Jul 13 20:30:50 UTC 2002

"Morbus Iff" <morbus at d...>
> >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
> and love? Why do we care?

The process the artist goes through to create a masterpiece is of interest

>Is FOAF widely adopted?

greater 50 people exist in some sort of foaf...

> How many FOAF creators, besides Leigh's, do we know?

Mine and Libby's, for direct human input, plus a couple of others which
convert from other data formats. Mine only does some of FOAF of course,
also there's the specific RDF editors which allow you to create any RDF.

> Do you
> think 99% of interested people will use Leigh's creator?

No idea, they'll probably use it or something similar, over the long term
you need to remeber foaf is just a way of describing people so wherever
people need to be described foaf will be used (foaf has other things
aswell of course)

> Why is XML in plain text anyways?

Plain text is very efficient at being transported and edited with _any_
tool that doesn't need to know about the file format and mark-up languages
tend to mark-up text aswell and being human readable is very useful... the
only problems with it are filesize, which is simply solved by using
compression - so rather than develop some binary format for each thing you
develop, you can simply use the well engineered popular compression

> <f:cSName>
> <f:CSN>
> <f:nDomain r:rsrc="afghanistan" />
> <f:cN>you</f:cN>
> </f:CSN>
> <f:CSN>
> <f:nD r:rsrc="usa" />
> <f:cN>Miri</f:cN>
> </f:CSN>
> </f:cSN>

It's incomprehensible gibberish, and only easier to type if your editor
doesn't do lots of the work.

> People are more accepting of things
> that look good (that whole code shui thing I bitch about once or twice
> every tech mL I'm on), then things that may work better (better
> without branches).

I heard the trees were actually more effective, but more expensive, of
course that may depend on the tree (and the type of mobile phone system.)


More information about the foaf-dev mailing list