[foaf-dev] works relation

Story Henry henry.story at bblfish.net
Fri Feb 5 21:49:27 CET 2010

On 5 Feb 2010, at 21:43, Danny Ayers wrote:
> It is untidy though, but I can't think of a tidy solution - perhaps as
> another party, treat the ontology as a named graph (an owl:Ontology no
> less), then make third-party annotations on it? (like you might do on
> a mailing list :)
> Dunno, it just seems broken in principle to take a black/white
> approach to vocabularies out there - most after all are evolving
> anyway, bad terms being just a special case of messy data.

Well all that will happen is that I will say it's a bad ontology to anyone who asks me, and that people should not use it - until some of the feedback given a couple of years ago is taken into account. Or perhaps I could be shown to be wrong. 

But that is a one page ontology. If we can't be critical at that level anymore then we are just setting ourselves up for being dismissed in most places. 

We need many of these relationships. Perhaps Ian could just fix some of these and I'd be happy to support it.


More information about the foaf-dev mailing list