[foaf-dev] [foaf-protocols] revisiting FOAF project goals
m.rowe at dcs.shef.ac.uk
Wed Jun 24 14:37:39 CEST 2009
On 24 Jun 2009, at 12:40, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Matthew Rowe<m.rowe at dcs.shef.ac.uk>
>> I concur with what Dave has said here, particularly regarding the
>> to explicitly define topics of relationships and associated trust
>> I think that the latter issue (assigning trust values to
>> relationships) as this appears to becoming especially important now
>> that work within the Semantic Web community is moving towards trust.
> This is something I'd also like, to see as trust and reputation
> infrastructure (eg for relationships) could be a valuable long term
> goal, built of the foundation that FOAF provides.
> However, I'm not sure how weight to an edge in RDF, without using a
> wrapper around the subject object pair (predicate is assumed) or
> reification, though i understand reification is not a popular option.
> Perhaps named graphs can help, or maybe storing an extra field in a DB
> for the weighting?
Yeh this is something I have been puzzled by aswell. Olaf Hartig's
paper on "Querying trust in RDF data with rSPARQL"  details that
RDF graphs can be trust weighted, and expresses individual statements
within the RDF graph as having trust values (ranging from 0-1).
However, the paper does not explicitly say how trust values would be
stored (ie. what the semantics would be for expressing a trust value).
As you suggested it appears that the db contains an associated trust
value with a given triple. I assume that in terms of assigning trust
values to relationships, trust values would be assigned to the
(<#Alice> foaf:knows <#Bob>) 0.9
I am really unsure how this would be described.
 - http://www.eswc2009.org/program-menu/accepted-papers/104-olaf-hartig-querying-trust-in-rdf-data-with-tsparql
>> On 24 Jun 2009, at 03:31, Dave Brondsema wrote:
>>> I initially became interested in FOAF when I found it as a
>>> way to declare relationships, especially since some social network
>>> providers already exported FOAF data. That was several years ago
>>> when I
>>> was working on Konfidi, a senior project at school: http://konfidi.org/
>>> I still put some time into working on it and want Konfidi to become
>>> truly useful for filtering email and blog spam, and more. Its
>>> has been pretty slow though, since it's just one of many side
>>> for me.
>>> For Konfidi, I've ended up deciding that using existing foaf:knows
>>> relations is great, but we also have our own Relationship class so
>>> can add topics and trust amounts to the relationship.
>>> For practical purposes, I'm mainly interested in the major providers
>>> that produce FOAF data, and those that have xfn microformat data.
>>> many of us write our own FOAF files, the public can't be expected to
>>> so, nor even know what FOAF is really. One part of Konfidi will
>>> be a
>>> webapp where you can log in with openid and declare some of your
>>> relationships. That would create the RDF for them, but all they'd
>>> is they're using the Konfidi system, nothing about FOAF or RDF.
>>> Dave Brondsema : dave at brondsema.net
>>> http://www.brondsema.net : personal
>>> http://www.splike.com : programming
>>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>> Matthew Rowe, MEng
>> PhD Student
>> OAK Group
>> Department of Computer Science
>> University of Sheffield
>> m.rowe at dcs.shef.ac.uk
>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
Matthew Rowe, MEng
Department of Computer Science
University of Sheffield
m.rowe at dcs.shef.ac.uk
More information about the foaf-dev