[foaf-dev] Re: stability of foaf:Organization
mikael at nilsson.name
Mon Feb 26 09:59:50 UTC 2007
Note that the DCMI is proposing a set of classes that are going to be
used as domains and ranges for dcterms: properties, including the Agent
class, which is the proposed range of the dcterms:creator property and
See the proposal here:
and the announcement here:
Public comment is currently in progress on the DC-ARCHITECTURE list, but
ends in approximately one week from now..
I plan to get back to this group later with some suggestions and
proposals for creating relevant references between the new DCMI classes
and existing FOAF classes....
Don't hesitate to comment, here or there!
On mån, 2007-02-26 at 09:04 +0100, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi Phil, Danbri,
> Both foaf:Agent  and foaf:Organization  are marked unstable in the
> currently published FOAF Vocabulary Specification. ERT WG is requesting
> the FOAF folks (Danbri et al) to change the formal status of these terms
> if they deem this appropriate. It would help us to normatively reference
> (and depend!) on these terms in the EARL 1.0 Schema:
> - <http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/>
>  <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_Agent>
>  <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_Organization>
> Phil Archer wrote:
> > Yes, I believe it is stable. It's a subclass of foaf:Agent which is
> > itself stable. Unless I hear screams to the contrary, I think
> > foaf:Organization will appear in the POWDER recs .
> > Cheers
> > Phil.
> >  http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
> > Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> it seems that foaf:Organization is actually pretty stable. It has been
> >> around a long time, and we would like to recommend it (and foaf:Agent
> >> and foaf:Person) as a preferred term in EARL . But it would be
> >> easier if it were formally marked as stable...
> >> any chance?
> >> cheers
> >> Chaals
<mikael at nilsson.name>
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
More information about the foaf-dev