[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
know
> 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
format.

> <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
in
> every tech mL I'm on), then things that may work better (better
reception
> 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.)

Jim.




More information about the foaf-dev mailing list