[rdfweb-dev] Re: FOAF Schema Validation

[Graham Klyne]

At 08:09 AM 2/5/03 +0000, Julian Bond wrote:
>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.

Speaking personally... my goal (or wish) is that FOAF provides a vocabulary 
that I can pick up (and sometimes extend) for describing miscellaneous 
things about people and friends in my toyings with RDF.  As such, I have no 
need for a restricted form of syntax (though I do appreciate why some folks 
might like that).  For me, one of the benefits of using RDF is that the 
syntax is one less thing I have to worry about when doing designs -- 
RDF/XML and Notation3 fulfill all my needs there (and cwm maps between them 
most adequately).

This being feedback from just one member of the "community".

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK at NineByNine.org>