[rdfweb-dev] Integrating SIOC and FOAF

CaptSolo captsolo at gmail.com
Sat Oct 15 19:48:08 UTC 2005

On 10/15/05, Alex Stewart <am2stewa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > No - they are not equivalent after all. Some SIOC terms [1] are a
> > specialisation of FOAF terms ( e.g., a Person), but not all FOAF terms
> will
> > have SIOC properties. So the cleanest way would be to just use "1)
> Subclass
> > SIOC terms from FOAF terms" and rely on reasoning engines to do
> > subclass->superclass inference.
> >
> > [1] http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec
> Ummm... according to [1], "[sioc:Person] can be mapped to
> foaf:Person." Are there any foaf:Persons that aren't sioc:Persons, or
> vice versa? If not, then they *are* equivalent.

What I am asking about is relation beween sioc:User and foaf:Person.

Please ignore sioc:Person for now - we introduced it to have the equivalent
of foaf:Person in SIOC, but concluded that is was unnecessary duplication.
sioc:Person, sioc:Group and sioc:Document will be removed in the next
revision of the spec.

Speaking about sioc:User - there certainly are foaf:Persons that are not
Further, there are many SIOC properties that sioc:User may have, but I doubt
that many will use them for foaf:Person directly.

When speaking about patterns of RDF statements using FOAF (and in a wider
scope - of patterns involving both RDF data and other ontologies), there is
a FoafRules page [2] on RDFWeb wiki created to discuss "rules about patterns
of RDF statements used in FOAF docs". It was created in a FoafMeet in 2003
and does not seem to be updated, but it might be a useful place for
[2] http://rdfweb.org/topic/FoafRules


[ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.usefulinc.com/pipermail/foaf-dev/attachments/20051015/5c8=

More information about the foaf-dev mailing list