[rdfweb-dev] inverse of knows:

Marc Canter marc at broadbandmechanics.com
Thu Oct 16 18:09:58 UTC 2003


Yes - as a matter of fact we were just working on a built-in survey -
which would enable participants to voice their opinion of what is the
correct path.

We also have a policy (perhaps you're not aware of) in PeopleAggregator
that goes like this:

	- for friend and close friend - an email verification is
required before someone can call someone else - by that term

		- in that email - one could automatically reciprocate
that relationship
			- after all if they really ARE your friend or
close friend, you should acknowledge that
			- and if they're not - then DON'T verify it!


	- for the other "types" of relationships:
		- acquaintance, know of (by reputation and in passing)
and "don't know, but want to":

			- they do NOT require email verification
			- that's the sort of statement someone can make
ABOUT you - that you don't necessarily need to verify

	- for related to....
		- that requires an email verification as well
		- but it automatically reciprocates
		- 'cause if he's your cousin, you're his cousin

Tabulating stats and analyzing how these relationship relationships
evolve - is definitely possible. However - to get ANY traction - we need
to get in a bunch of features NOW or else nobody will USE it.

So I hope you'll bear with us.....

:-)

Now back to proselytizing FOAF to the world of enterprise digital
identity. Specifically Jamie Lewis called for an open source standard
for.....

.... so I immediately walked up to him and......

http://blogs.it/0100198/2003/10/16.html#a1853

:-)

- Marc

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri at w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:45 AM
To: Marc Canter
Cc: 'Victor Lindesay'; rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
Subject: Re: [rdfweb-dev] inverse of knows:

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