[rdfweb-dev] Re: FOAF Schema Validation

[Julian Bond]

Ian Davis <iand at internetalchemy.org> wrote:
>On Wednesday, 22 January 2003 at 08:30, Julian Bond wrote:
>
>> ISTM it would be useful for FOAF to follow both RDF and XML rules. An
>> agreed syntax would provide clearer guidance to authors and allow an XML
>> interpretation of the data without preventing the community from reading
>> it as RDF and extending it as RDF as required.

>The goal of FOAF is to be a clean/pure RDF application to allow
>testing and experimentation with the RDF model. I don't think
>restricting its syntax helps with that goal.

I was looking for a post and came across this. And I had to say 
something.

Surely FOAF is not just a testbed for testing and experimenting with the 
RDF model?

And if that really is true, then I think it's now sufficiently popular 
as a way of coding information about people and their relationships to 
justify NFOAF (Not FOAF); the soon to be well known RDF-XML Standard.

Not so long ago, I asked a question about FOAF coding style and was told 
that the FOAF spec follows implementation, not the other way round. I 
clearly misunderstood something then. I really thought that FOAF was an 
attempt to create a standard. If that had been the case, then clearly 
Implementation <-> Spec is a circular process. Put up samples, agree a 
spec, bring the samples in line, try something new, adjust the spec, 
bring the implementations in line with the new spec, etc etc, continue 
until bored.

So what is the community's goal here? And I choose the word "community" 
deliberately because FOAF is now bigger than the people who started it.

-- 
Julian Bond Email&MSM: julian.bond at voidstar.com
Webmaster:              http://www.ecademy.com/
Personal WebLog:       http://www.voidstar.com/
CV/Resume:          http://www.voidstar.com/cv/
M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173   T: +44 (0)192 0412 433