[foaf-dev] Proposal: deprecate pastProject and currentProject

Richard Cyganiak richard at cyganiak.de
Mon Dec 14 12:20:04 CET 2009


On 13 Dec 2009, at 21:12, Dan Brickley wrote:
> There's a risk with this stuff of building parallel sets of
> properties; those that link to pages and those that link to the
> primary topics of those pages. RDFa biases us towards the former,
> modelling clarity towards the latters.

I would almost go as far as calling the former (workplaceHomepage,  
schoolHomepage) an anti-pattern. I don't think that RDFa biases us  
towards them. Adding the extra @typeof is not particularly hard, and  
provides an obvious way of attaching a foaf:name to the entity as well.

> Reminds me of the XFN mapping
> discussion too.
>
> workplaceHomepage, schoolHomepage are in former category; pastProject,
> currentProject too on my preferred reading;

I'm checking the spec and realising that currentProject indeed  
"relates a person to a document". I could have sworn that its range  
was foaf:Project. That's what I was thinking all those years anyway,  
and that's how I've been using it.

What's the basis for the assertion in the spec that "in practice" it's  
used to refer to pages?

Best,
Richard


> but I don't have a strong
> view.
>
>> The phrase “archaic use of RDF” will definitely henceforth be part  
>> of my
>> dictionary.
>
> :)
>
>> How would you mark terms as archaic?
>
> Simplest is probably to try to get write access to
> http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns# again, under informal
> some SWIG banner most likely. FOAF already uses that ns for flagging
> status of terms. I'm amused that *that* vocab is itself marked
> unstable, but I guess we can work on that too!
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan



More information about the foaf-dev mailing list