[rdfweb-dev] Time's running out?

Libby Miller Libby.Miller at bristol.ac.uk
Fri Aug 8 09:11:13 UTC 2003


>
> Victor Lindesay's comment that " the list above which must be an
> embarrassment to both the owners of this so called standard and all the
> major participants " I don't agree with at all, I'm not an owner, and I'm
> not sure if I'm a "major participant" but I don't find it embarrassing,
> they've been known and discussed for ages, both me and Libby have published
> the same stats for a long time.

and in fact it's pretty interesting to see the sorts of things that
people might want to include in their foaf files. This kind of user
experience can feed into FOAF: some parts of the FOAF vocabulary are
stable and others are less so.

>
> Again I feel it's someone who doesn't fully understand RDF vocabularies, and
> thinks in terms of XML validation, and thinks in terms of having one RDF
> vocab that does everything, the task is not to create _an_ RDF schema for
> representing a person and people they know, the task is to create RDF
> schemas which achieve it, it will never be possible to create one schema
> that does this.

right, and I don't think we should be trying. RDF is _designed_ for the
distributed creation of interlocking vocabularies, which is what makes
it ideal for describing people, since we are interested in all sorts of
things about people that are rather specialized domains, e.g. events
data and calendaring, location data, document versioning data.

I talked a a bit about some of these issues with respect to event data
recently:
http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2003/07/caltalk/all.htm

cheers

Libby




More information about the foaf-dev mailing list