[rdfweb-dev] RE: FOAF-interest usage
mof-rdf at mfd-consult.dk
Mon Mar 15 15:50:14 UTC 2004
On Monday 15 March 2004 10:44, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> Sure, but thats all predicated on the fact that people will use the same
> document as exemplars of their interest. This is relatively straightforward
> for say, XML and RDF as one can point to either the spec or the activity,
> but not that useful for something more general like "Information
> Architecture", or "Gardening".
Indeed, it's not a holy grail, but if both resources have URIs, it should be
(more) straightforward to "join" them somehow.
> Perhaps there's a best practice issue here, as I've got similar
> reservations with how foaf:tipjar (newly added to the spec I see) is
> This term also has a range of foaf:Document, but notes that "We expect, but
> do not currently specify, that this will evolve into a hook for finding
> more machine-readable information to support payments..".
> This means, to me at least, that we may ultimately want to use something
> other than foaf:Document in that element, e.g. ns:PaymentMechanism.
> If so, isn't it always better to use a more general range of Resource when
> describing a term whose usage is expected to develop "organically", rather
> than overspecifying things initially?
Well, flexibility is good, but with flexibility comes complexity, as you then
won't know what's at the "end" of the property, see dc:creator vs. foaf:maker.
In any case, you could still attach some ns:PaymentMechanism properties to
the Document described, as in, "this document, which is my tipjar info page,
describes how to pay via this mechanism etc.". Perhaps not ideal, but not
More information about the foaf-dev