[foaf-dev] foaf:interest seems not very useful, targeting URLs rather than URIs

[Damian Steer]

On 16 Dec 2008, at 22:03, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:

> Brief discussion on #foaf --
>

<snip>

> 16:46:17 I understand the thinking.
> 16:46:21 I suggest it's broken thinking.
> 16:46:38 URIs rather than URLs...  it's a simple alternative

You suggest there's a difference between URIs and URLs?

> 16:47:25 if a page lacks a declared primary topic -- I cannot  
> reasonably
>          use it for my foaf:interest, even if it *is* about that topic

1) Missing != broken. 2) it doesn't need to be explicit to be useful.

I think the story around foaf:interest goes something like this: what  
can use to identify interests? We could build an library of  
identifiers (see PSIs in the old days), but they seem to move slowly.  
On the other hand when something is of potential interest there's a  
fighting chance at least one obsessive has written a web page  
(primarily) about that interest. So use those pages, which often have  
high google visibility, to indirectly identify those interests.  
Wikipedia is ideal, of course.

So it's by no means broken, but I'd dearly love a name for the direct  
relation between person and interest topic. topic_interest was  
supposed to do that, but it isn't recommended.

Damian