jim at jibbering.com
Tue Aug 12 14:37:22 UTC 2003
"Sean B. Palmer" <sean at mysterylights.com>
> There is a definite socially defined concept of an FOAF file
I'm not completely sure I agree with this one, there's certainly concepts of
it people have, but I don't believe we know they should be the same.
> How do you know, when you're scuttering, that you're picking up data
> that is going to be useful to your application?
You can look at it at the triple level and tell, that does mean you need to
scutter it yes, and agree a foaf:foaf is attractive, my concern is the
current cost to developers, subClasses/properties seem to be problematical
to people at the moment (see the trouble just with having foaf:Person in
files) so every time we add one I think we need to be very careful. I
don't think just scuttering on foaf:foaf would be practical, we've already
got quite a large base not using it.
It's more a current cost problem than anything else, and because of that I'm
wondering if a foafDocument type might be a better approach? although it
looks a lot more complicated and scary to the non-RDF person.
More information about the foaf-dev