[rdfweb-dev] PPD

Michael Brian Orr mike at michael-brian-orr.net
Fri Feb 6 17:01:26 UTC 2004

As a lurker of this list and a newbie to the entire
arena, I've been increasingly puzzled and frustrated by
this thread, and last night[PST]'s traffic finally
crossed the gotta chime threshold for me. What follows
seems to me an important point, but maybe it's actually
a beginner's plea for instruction and I just don't know
it yet ;^}

The point that various foaf processors need to recognize
about-ness as opposed to mentioned-ness seems clear, but
it also seems clear (to this member of the peanut
gallery, anyway) that such necessity is just as clear
for foaf-unaware as for foaf-aware ones, and this seems
to me the crux. For a domain ontology - particular foaf,
given its pioneer/exemplar role - to create special
vocabulary here seems to set a bad precedent. 

As has been pointed out in prior rounds of this thread,
the real/ultimate solution is quite thorny because it
involves general questions of identity and authority:
the document has to be signed, it has to be recognizable
to the world that the signer has authority with respect
to the topic, and there has to be some way of dealing
with off-the-wall claims. Subject matter for some future

We aren't there yet, and the immediate answer will
necessarily be simpler, subject to abuse, etc. But this
is something that many ontologies will need to handle,
and what foaf could do is show the rest of the world how
we're going to do it without resorting to
domain-specific vocabulary (or with, but that doesn't
seem like a good thing). 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rdfweb-dev-bounces at vapours.rdfweb.org 
> [mailto:rdfweb-dev-bounces at vapours.rdfweb.org] On
Behalf Of Ian Davis
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 5:04 AM
> To: Julian Bond
> Cc: rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> Subject: Re: [rdfweb-dev] PPD
> Hi Julian,
> On Friday, February 6, 2004, 12:35:04 PM, Julian Bond
> > Two foaf files.
> > 1) Person A plus 100 foaf:knows from them to Persons
> > 2) Person B plus 100 foaf:knows from them to Persons
x, one 
> of which is
> > Person A and includes their mbox_sha1sum, a seeAlso
to the 
> first file
> > and that's it. File one is rich with info about
Person A. 
> File 2 really
> > only has info about Person B, one piece of which is
> know Person A"
> > How does an aggregator recognise the difference
between the 
> two so that
> > it can later cough up the first and not the second
in a list about 
> > Person A? Answer: by looking for topic, maker, made,
> Structure, lack
> > of foaf:knows etc etc in file 1) for Person A. Or
because it found a
> > foaf:primaryTopic pointing at A.
> I'm still unsure what the social value of producing
this information
> is aside from techie curiosity but still...
> I would rank the files in the order of number of
triples involving
> non-IFP properties where the person appears as subject
or object. i.e.
> I'd exclude any triples containing weblog, mailbox,
> etc since those are used as identifiers not
descriptors. Any file with
> a rank higher than 0 is describing the person in some
way, you can set
> your threshold wherever you like to show only the
really descriptive
> ones.
> Ian
> -- 
> http://internetalchemy.org | http://purl.org/NET/iand 
> Working on... Pepys
> _______________________________________________
> 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