[rdfweb-dev] inverse of knows:

Dan Brickley danbri at w3.org
Thu Oct 16 17:44:58 UTC 2003


So, I'm totally not averse to having more detailed inter-personal 
relation types included in the FOAF core. But I am wary. We could easily 
create a framework which would bring more akwardness into the world. 

For example, since foaf:knows is so bland, it doesn't cause much 
upset. If we add 'friend', we get into situations where A says B is 
his/her friend, yet B only says A is an acquaitance. Which may be OK but 
might also be less than idea.

OK so you're running into this on PA already, I'm interested in feedback 
from deployment experience.

http://peopleaggregator.com/view?url=http://peopleaggregator.com/profile.php?id=3

...says "Marc friendOf Morten"

Yet Morten, in
http://peopleaggregator.com/view?url=http://peopleaggregator.com/profile.php?id=22

...only says "Morten acquiantanceOf Marc".

The truth is probably somewhere in between, and you've taxonomised it 
differently since you're different people with different understandings 
of those words, different cultural backgrounds, different personalities.

But this kind of dynamic, already familiar from blogrolls etc., could
turn FOAF into an economy of ego, and I'm not sure we're ready for that
yet. So I'm really interested in how things shake out on PA, perhaps you 
or Eric could run some stats on the % of relationships that are asserted
symetrically by both parties, versus apparent contradictions or
tensions...

Would that be possible?

Dan

* Marc Canter <marc at broadbandmechanics.com> [2003-10-16 09:59-0700]
> We've extended the schema - as a means of developing new functionality.
> 
> The idea is:
> 
> 	- various folks (like us) try out new things
> 	- if it works, we then hand that back to "the community"
> 	- danbri, Libby and whoever else then "do their thing"
> 	- we all light candles and pray that the FOAF gods will grace us
> with validation or approval
> 
> Not really sure what will happen if we're "excommunicated" (or rejected
> or is contrary opinions or beliefs ar hoisted upon us.)  Though we may
> seem heretical, we love FOAF anyway.
> 
> :-)
> 
> danbri has said (as of last week) that 'perhaps' the process of how
> these new 'extensions' might be folded in, accepted, rejected, etc. -
> will be publicly stated......
> 
> :-)
> 
> So yes - you're right Victor - there's all sorts of new stuff in our
> FOAF  it's  work in progress.
> 
> - marc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rdfweb-dev-bounces at vapours.rdfweb.org
> [mailto:rdfweb-dev-bounces at vapours.rdfweb.org] On Behalf Of Victor
> Lindesay
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:54 AM
> To: rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> Subject: RE: [rdfweb-dev] inverse of knows:
> 
> Julian Bond wrote:
> > Marc Canter http://peopleaggregator.com/profile.php?id=3
> > seem to be extending it. You might like to talk to him/them.
> 
> Looking at this People Aggregator FOAF, I noticed properties such as
> closeFriendOf, knowByRep, knowInPass, wouldLikeToKnow all in Eric's
> 'Relationship' namespace. But these are not defined in the schema. Is
> this right or have I missed something (about RDF).
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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