[rdfweb-dev] advocating use of rdf:ID / rdf:about attributes onfoaf:Person tags

Jonathan Greensted jonathan.greensted at sentient.co.uk
Sun Aug 17 07:20:28 UTC 2003

Hello FOAFers.

Just picking up on a couple of things from recent posts:

> I don't want to have a URI that denotes me (I am not a number, and I ain't
> going to Portmeiron whatever you do to me) and we certainly don't need 
> one, I don't feel it helps much either to have one (because if we have
> one, we'll have many which doesn't help us any, we'll still have to smush
> on IFPs like now, it's just more data for people to get wrong.)

We are all data already! We are already many, many numbers (email, social
security, passport, driving licence, mobile phone number, etc.) I think it
would be a good idea to have a "number" that we can control link this.  A
kind of authorative location where the "true" information can be found.

Maybe this will be your freddie:id maybe it won't but there are lots of
reasons for people to want to know about you and lots of reasons why you
might want to publish the truth (or lies!)

> Your gender is clearly under specified, there's a lot more than 3 genders
> I'm afraid (which is one of the reaons why it's not made it in yet,
> there's been some recent discussion on how to model it on the list,
> perhaps you could check the archives.

Really?  I recently visited the hospital with my wife for a 12 week scan of
our unborn baby.  When I asked about the gender I was only given two
options!  Can you explain the others?

>> Could you explain how you see rdfs:seeAlso is being misused?
> I'm not claiming it is being misused in writing FOAF files.  I'm claiming
> it is being misused in reading FOAF files: it is wrong to assume that the
> target of the rdfs:seeAlso property of any RDF resource having rdf:type
> foaf:Person is automatically some downloadable RDF file which will provide
> some description or some information on said resource.

OK, lets assume the FOAF people "don't understand" about this rdfs:seeAlso
stuff.  What is the better option?  I'm keen to have a mechanism to say
"this url points to other stuff associated with this person" but I don't
want to have to explain what.  

Maybe I'll provide a <dc:format>application/foaf-xml</dc:format> or maybe
I'll let the consumer figure it out.

Should we have a <foaf:link> instead or maybe <foaf:externalResource> ??


More information about the foaf-dev mailing list