[rdfweb-dev] process and goals (was Time's running out?)

Dan Brickley danbri at w3.org
Tue Aug 12 10:49:28 UTC 2003


* Jonathan Greensted <jonathan.greensted at sentient.co.uk> [2003-08-12 11:36+0100]
> Libby
> 
> I entered "irc.freenode.net #foaf" into my browser and I got an error page.
> 
> Thinking that maybe the #foaf bit broke it I tried "irc.freenode.net" and
> got a blank page with the text "nothin' here..."
> 
> I think this goes to demonstrate that you people live in some strange other
> world that I just don't understand.

It's called "The Internet" ;)

<ducks/> <grins/>

> What should I do next?

Libby didn't expand the acronym. 'irc' -> Internet Relay Chat. It's a 
text-based real time chat protocol (http://rfc.sunsite.dk/rfc/rfc1459.html) 
widely used for stupid stuff, but also valued by various Internet-based 
development efforts, typically opensource, distributed etc. For Windows
users, http://www.mirc.com/ is a common client. A lot of opensource
projects make use of the Freenode IRC network of servers, see
http://www.freenode.net/ and we have channels (called #rdfig and #foaf)
on that network which typically have ~40-50 and ~20-30 people on them 
respectively). 

Earle's already pointed you to http://www.irchelp.org/ 
Basically you need an IRC client, and point it a combination of an IRC 
network (it's a federated protocol) and a channel. Reading up on basics
of IRC etiquette might be an idea too, to avoid accidental offence. Note
that both #rdfig and #foaf are public and logged to Web pages
(see http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/ and http://rdfweb.org/irc/ respectively).

hope this helps,

Dan

ps. I'm not in irc much today as a bit busy...
> 
> J.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rdfweb-dev-bounces at vapours.rdfweb.org
> [mailto:rdfweb-dev-bounces at vapours.rdfweb.org] On Behalf Of Libby Miller
> Sent: 12 August 2003 10:54
> To: rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan,
> 
> Several of the people on this list have participated in or
> observered vocabulary development processes of various kinds, whether
> in a formal standards context or in a less formal setting. Sitting on
> your arse in a shuttered room thinking about this stuff does not produce
> good vocabularies or tools. Implementations, testing, error checking
> and discussion by an interested community does a much better job. The
> process of developing foaf vocabulary terms may not be formal, but it
> depends on implementer experience and feedback, and that's the way it
> should be for a robust, useful vocabulary.
> 
> Bear in mind also that enabling social networking sofware was not our
> initial goal; social networking was an app that came later. I thought
> Martin put it well
> 
> http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfweb-dev/2003-August/011653.html
> 
> [[
> Is the task of this project "to produce and publish a usable RDF Schema
> for representing a person and people they know" (Lindeman)? My
> impression was that was just a subgoal within wider goals such as
> enabling "Semantic homepages", raising awareness of the expressive power
> of multiple-namespace documents, and generally throwing up data and
> applications for RDF tools to chew on. Different participants have
> different hopes about what FOAF will achieve, I expect.
> ]]
> 
> We are in the process of making sure the schema is consistent, and all
> feedback related to that it is more than welcome. Why not come and chat
> about your concerns on irc (irc.freenode.net #foaf)?
> 
> cheers
> 
> Libby
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:04:37 +0100
> From: Jonathan Greensted <jonathan.greensted at sentient.co.uk>
> To: rdfweb-dev <rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org>
> Subject: RE: [rdfweb-dev] Time's running out?
> 
> Dear fellow FOAFers,
> 
> You are clearly making it up as you go along!
> 
> This was fine while FOAF was only used by a bunch of academics who were
> playing in their spare time but social networking is going main stream and
> the recent discussions should have be resolved years ago.
> 
> Mailing lists work well in some scenarios and badly in others.  This is a
> case where you just look like a bunch on amateurs blagging your way and
> hoping no one will notice.
> 
> Well the games up.  I've noticed, so have a few others.  Time to lock
> yourselves in a room with a whiteboard, solve the problems properly and
> produce a proper definition for the world to use or accept you'll just be
> left behind.
> 
> So what's it going to be, red pill or blue pill?
> 
> J.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rdfweb-dev-bounces at vapours.rdfweb.org
> [mailto:rdfweb-dev-bounces at vapours.rdfweb.org] On Behalf Of Dan Brickley
> Sent: 11 August 2003 23:49
> To: Victor Lindesay
> Cc: rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> 
> * Victor Lindesay <victor at vicsoft.co.uk> [2003-08-11 22:21+0100]
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jim Ley [mailto:jim at jibbering.com]
> > > Sent: 10 August 2003 01:45
> > > To: Victor Lindesay; rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> > > Subject: Re: [rdfweb-dev] Time's running out?
> > >
> > >
> > > "Victor Lindesay" <victor at vicsoft.co.uk>
> > > > As the domain of foaf:knows is declared as foaf:Person, all
> > > subjects in
> > > > statements with a foaf:knows (or any FOAF property with a domain of
> > > > foaf:Person) predicate can be assumed to be of type foaf:Person.
> > >
> > > Not assumed to be they are, or the data is a wrong.
> >
> > What is the point of this remark? I have expressed myself correctly. I
> > post on this list to talk about RDF and FOAF, not English.
> 
> I found your wording perfectly understandable.
> 
> > > Why do you care about the type at all?
> >
> > Because I want to write software that processes data correctly. You
> > might not care about crap data but I do.
> 
> I think we all care about crap data, and are just coming at this from
> different traditions. The ommission of an rdf:type property with value
> foaf:Person isn't a perfect indicator of crapness though, nor is its
> presence a guarantee of accuracy. However tightly we define our schemas
> (RDFS, OWL etc) and document formats (DTDs, XML Schemas etc) there will
> be plenty of opportunities for crappy data to slip through the gaps,
> un-noticed by machines. Take foaf:Person for example. We don't say
> whether the person has to be alive, dead, real, imagined etc. If we
> spent weeks nailing down a far more ambitious version of FOAF which did
> make such distinctions (eg. INDECS, the rights description language,
> had a good stab at this) we would still have a tricky time trying to
> machine-check data to see whether it met our new schema.
> 
> Vocab-based crapness detection will only take us so far; after that,
> we're into the murkier world of trust metrics, hacks and heuristics...
> (which is where the pre-XML search engines live, fwiw...)
> 
> Dan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rdfweb-dev mailing list
> rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> wiki: http://rdfweb.org/topic/FoafProject
> http://rdfweb.org/mailman/listinfo/rdfweb-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rdfweb-dev mailing list
> rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> wiki: http://rdfweb.org/topic/FoafProject
> http://rdfweb.org/mailman/listinfo/rdfweb-dev
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rdfweb-dev mailing list
> rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> wiki: http://rdfweb.org/topic/FoafProject
> http://rdfweb.org/mailman/listinfo/rdfweb-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rdfweb-dev mailing list
> rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> wiki: http://rdfweb.org/topic/FoafProject
> http://rdfweb.org/mailman/listinfo/rdfweb-dev



More information about the foaf-dev mailing list