[rdfweb-dev] foaf weblog'd
danbri at w...
Tue Sep 24 23:32:50 UTC 2002
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Mark Pilgrim wrote:
> > FOAF met the Weblog world this weekend (via the diveintomark.org
> This is all my fault. My only purpose was to learn some RDF concepts
> and syntax.
That's one of the various reasons for doing FOAF. I've various sentences
that beging 'the point of FOAF was...', some of which are to do with
providing a fun and real world experimental testbed for putting some
rather abstract technologies into use. There are some features of RDF that
only make sense when you use it...
> I apologize profusely for taking a perfectly lovely RDF
> vocabulary and turning it into an evil meme. :)
Don't apologise, it's all good fun. I've never been part of a weblog
fadlet before, it's just sort of wierd to see people discussing this
> FOAF does seem like a natural fit for weblog-land, though, since people
> seem to spend inordinate amounts of time grooming their "blogrolls" to
They do? I guess I miss that, since I don't weblog myself (though I do
read them). That's interesting to know.
> announce to the world which communities they belong to. There have
> been some attempts to standardize on a metadata format for these
> blogrolls, but nothing has stuck yet. FOAF seems like a decent fit.
It certainly sounds do-able. I'm a little wary of it getting into
scenarios where people feel obliged to list their 'best-est friends' in
order. In fact to date we've gotten along ok without actually having a
relationship type called 'foaf:friend'. Instead, we list more concrete
thigns, like facts about who wrote things together, who is in the same
photos etc... Not sure how that'd map into weblog space. Maybe
'frequentlyCommentsOnBlogsBy' is roughly what blogroll amounts to? Or is
it also 'admiresFromADistanceTheWritingsOf'?
> I have a specific FOAF-related syntax question. I asked this on Ben's
> site a few days ago and got several answers, and more (and different)
> answers by email.
OK. I expected this would flush out some areas we could document better...
> Simply put, I have a FOAF file, and I have an RSS feed, and I want to
> point to my FOAF file from my RSS feed.
> DJ Adams suggests dc:creator @rdf:resource:
> [dc:creator rdf:resource='http://www.pipetree.com/~dj/foaf.rdf#qmacro' /]
> danbri suggests inline foaf:
> [foaf:Person foaf:name="Dan Brickley"]
> [rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="http://rdfweb.org/people/danbri/rdfweb/danbri-foaf.rdf"/]
> [!-- other properties here if you care, eg foaf:homepage --]
> [!-- other channel stuff --]
(reading [ and ] for < and >; it was an artifact of the discussion board)
> In email, Kevin Burton suggested mod_link:
> [l:link l:rel="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
> Does anyone have an opinion about which of these would be the best
Unsuprisingly, I prefer my version. And we have tools that work with
cross-linked RDF files that link in this style. The first approach, read
literally in RDF, confuses the 'creator' of something with a document that
describes that person. You could sort-of do something similar. The
approach I prefer says, in effect, 'this thing was created by a person who
name is .... and who is further described in this (or these) file ....'. I
don't know much about Kevin's link module. It seems specific to FOAF,
though. Oddly enough, the style I propose isn't particularly FOAFy, and
works for connecting together descriptions in any RDF documents. You
mention something, describe it a bit, and then point off to one or more
other documents which have further info. This is such a useful thing to do
that the rdfs:seeAlso property was added to the W3C RDF Schema
So, if "i'm right and they're not quite as right" works for you, hope this
More information about the foaf-dev