[foaf-dev] Fwd: [StatusNet-dev] User Karma
melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Mon Nov 30 11:17:20 CET 2009
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri at danbri.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri at danbri.org> wrote:
>>> Interesting discussion of karma (well not the religious kind) over on the
>>> statusnet / identi.ca list...
>> Nice post. Not sure about their algorithm but site specific karma /
>> points / thanks system is generally a good thing (I have experienced
>> this in various bulletin board systems, and find it quite positive).
>> Reminds me also of your post on egobanks.
>> Obviously as identi.ca have FOAFs already, it would be ideal for users
>> to have their karma as part of their FOAF, and therefore linked data
>> profile, and consequently online reputation (non-spammer).
>> Do you think we can model this and put it out as part of the next FOAF spec?
> Not the next version ('Rehydrated Edition', which I was working on
> with Libby yesterday). But yes, I would like to get back to these
> themes of trust and provenance as a longstanding FOAF concern. I'm not
> sure what needs to go in the spec though. Have you seen the way
> Advogato express their trust network in FOAF? It's quite simple, they
> just define 3 instances of foaf:Group and link users and members of
The user rank style, yes this is a popular and effective metric.
> So here's me according to the advogato hive mind:
> <foaf:PersonalProfileDocument rdf:about="">
> <rdfs:label>Advogato FOAF profile for Dan Brickley</rdfs:label>
> <foaf:maker rdf:resource="#me"/>
> <foaf:primaryTopic rdf:resource="#me"/>
> <foaf:Group rdf:about="http://www.advogato.org/ns/trust#Journeyer">
> <foaf:member rdf:resource="#me"/>
> <foaf:Person rdf:about="#me">
> <foaf:name>Dan Brickley</foaf:name>
> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://danbri.org/"/>"...
> I'm increasingly liking foaf:Group as a natural extensibility point
> for FOAF. It puts extensions into 'user space' and reduces pressure on
> us to have everything in some 'official' namespace. See also notes
> here - http://wiki.foaf-project.org/w/FOAFLists - on using Group to
> express XFN relationship types, as well as twitter lists, identi.ca
> groups etc...
foaf groups i think are incredibly and increasingly important,
especially when you talk about karma, trust, or reputation (which i
think are all related). I like this diagram for modelling reputation
I see FOAF as being well suited to aggregate elements from other parts
of the web, classically profile data and friends. However I think
where FOAF can shine is to aggregate your online reputation (and yes
we'll probably need assertions in another namespace too) from other
Should it be in the 'top' level foaf namespace? I'd be in favour as I
think there's a need for a central point of aggregation for your
various assets, such that you have an account, then a container for
your assets/karma/points/score etc. which can be site specific. Does
that sort of make sense?
More information about the foaf-dev