[rdfweb-dev] Re: [foafcorp-dev] The new hierarchies site is in beta
jam at wirerimmed.com
Sun Sep 21 20:12:51 UTC 2003
On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> * James Moore <jam at wirerimmed.com> [2003-09-19 19:41-0700]
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> I've just posted the new version of the Hierarchies Project website
>> . Right now it will produce RDF  and SVG  versions of company
>> listings. The schema I'm using is what was batted around briefly
>> months ago so I'd appreciate anyone interested in FOAFCorp to glance
> Cool! I've just started a little experiment in using FOAF to support
> journalism, so was looking for an fc: way of expressing 'nasdaq
> stockticker' just now. Do you have that? For now I just made up a bs
> property in the current fc namespace, calling it 'nasdaq' while not
> really yet understanding how many different stockticker ID value spaces
> there are. If just one, then 'stockID' might have been a better name.
i've added ticker symbol, common name, and notes to the DB schema. The
RDF schema hasn't been updated to reflect this yet. Obviously I'd like
to reuse definitions wherever possible. I found a reference to some
foafcorp like work  that not only lists the symbol but also the
market. I'd be happy to just have ticker symbol and assume nasdaq to
start with since most of our data is for US companies.
> Looking at your 2.rdf, a question: what does the 'Relationship'
> mean? Just is just hold between companies? Does it mean something like
> 'corporate alliance', or 'owns', 'is owned by', 'subcontracts to' etc?
Relationship is just a way of categorizing a parnet-child link between
2 entities. Right now an entity is a corp or NGO. For example it could
define a company->division link or a lobby group->member link. There's
definitely room for more categories like 'subcontracts to'.
> foaf:owns was suggested on rdfweb-dev recently btw., and discussed a
> little in #foaf IRC. It would have a range of foaf:Agent (which would
> include fc:Company), and a domain of 'Resource' (ie. everything is
> considered ownable). Not sure how that fits w/ foafcorp extensions, nor
> where its best to draw the line between the two.
I'm making a distinction between a corp owning a brand and owning
another company. So Assets (like brands) are coupled directly to the
Entity. A corp that's owned by another corp is linked via an
intermediate property that can itself have some properties, percentage
of ownership for example.
The approach I took to relationships looks like:
<foaf:name>Altria Group Inc.</foaf:name>
<contact:Address> New York, NY US</contact:Address>
If the entity was a board then the relationship could 'board member'
and the child could point to the foaf for the board member. I defined
the range of child to be an entity but i think now that was a bad idea.
> (time passes, I get distracted by http://www.gregpalast.com/ and adding
> to my FOAF/journo demo. Oh yeah, that's what I was going to say)
> ...is an example of some RDF/XML using FOAF and other vocab (foafcorp,
> wot, rdfs) to describe some raw materials of journalistic/activistic
> interest. In this case relating to the Company 'Jet Blue' and their
> recent naughtyness w.r.t. donating data to creepy TIA-style research.
One thing that isn't expressed in our current schema is what we refer
to as Effects and Source. For example Dyncorp has been in some trouble
in the past  and we *really* want people to submit that kind of
info. If the schema included this data then your jet blue example could
become somewhat smaller by just linking to the main jet blue rdf
document on hierarchies right? I realize the metadata for the source is
rather slim and would need some beefing-up before it could really work
the same way.
> OK, rambling now. I might try write this up for the weblog.
> Re Foafcorp and hierarchies schema and Zool's schema, how best to
> proceed? I'm totally up for converging these, and (if not too
> presumptious) happy to offer the FC namespace at
> http://xmlns.com/foaf/corp# for the results of any such collaboration,
> merging. Zool has CVS access now, and you'd be welcome to it too. We
> could invent some change-control policies, like those used for
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/RdfCalendar / http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/
Using the foafcorp namespace for the hierarchies data is fine by me.
Right now there's almost no overlap between our two schemas though.
What would be the drawbacks of adopting the current hierarchies schema
and moving forward with changes from there? The only reason I suggest
this is that hierarchies has usable data right now even if the schema
gets changed later.
> From the rdf-calendar page:
> At the Bristol workshop, we agreed, roughly...
> * we announce all changes to the schema www-rdf-calendar
> * if anyone screams, within a week or so, we'll back out the
> * changes (for further discussion)
> If the last modified dates below are more than a few months old,
> active developments have likely ceased. If things ever actually
> stabilize, we'll change this status message.
> Maybe we could do same w/ foafcorp vocab?
Sounds good to me.
More information about the foaf-dev