[rdfweb-dev] Dating Service/Intro

Morten Frederiksen mof-rdf at mfd-consult.dk
Tue Jan 6 22:13:39 UTC 2004

On Tuesday 06 January 2004 20:27, Stephen Pollei wrote:
> Thats about where I think you are wrong. On what principle should for
> instance gender, myersbriggs, img, mbox, depicts, dna_checksum, name,
> interest, geekcode, near_by, and birthday be included and hair color be
> excluded? Lets play name the Razor?
I think we get the point, but it's all a matter of starting somewhere, then 
evolving. To my knowledge, there isn't enough practical experience with these 
matters to say which way is "the best". One thing to keep in mind though, is 
that all properties and classes are just opague URI strings, so any talk of 
namespaces shouldn't really matter...

> It is severely borken in that you treat it as a time immortal truth that
> one email address is forever used by one and only one
> entity/agent/person. 
This is plain and simply not correct.

From the specification (the namespace document):
"A personal mailbox, ie. an Internet mailbox associated with exactly one 
owner, the first owner of this mailbox. This is a 'static inverse functional 
property', in that there is (across time and change) at most one individual 
that ever has any particular value for foaf:mbox."

I think you may have misread this as a statement of fact that all email 
addresses have these properties. That is of course not true. However, when 
using a specific email address as a foaf:mbox, one is stating that the above 
is the case for this specific mailbox.

> Three trivial counter-examples of your assumptions.
Two of them clearly are bogus, but this one does present some potential 
practical problems:

> 2) hotmail reuse... Jennifer Anderson Smith registers
> hotbabe666 at hotmail.com uses it for awhile then goes away. Several months
> later Mary Lu Patterson registers hotbabe666 at hotmail.com . rinse lather
> repeat for other places that can recycle addresses.
There's currently no generally accepted way in RDF to retract statements. 
This issue has been covered before, one way to handle it would be to simply 
expire all statements a certain period after being collected...


More information about the foaf-dev mailing list