[foaf-dev] comparing wot against FOAF+SSL
kidehen at openlinksw.com
Mon Mar 22 13:45:55 CET 2010
Peter Williams wrote:
> Ok I translated it into English in the article, taking heed of what you say. (it took me 3 years to learn how to read RDF/XML, admittedly, but now it's EASY - even natural).
> I don't feel happy to translate that particular piece of historical material into N3, as the (WOT document) source has the XMlish format of its era.
You can leave the WOT stuff as is, to some degree it accentuates some
vital historic points (which include its RDF/XML based representation).
> I'd be interfering with "history", amending the timeline in violation of some fictional law, and undermining one of my own points - were I to translate, technically.
> (That the wot was/is not part of the linked data world's assumption set is a comparison point- contrasting with the more pedantic and prescriptive FOAF+SSL -- which tied strictly to linked data axioms for its identity model).
But you could make translations for readability, and to some degree use
the translation to accentuate the historic aspects of your post i.e.,
things have changed across a range of dimensions:
1. Resolvable Names/Identifiers
2. Human Friendly Markup/Syntax.
> I didn't say it, but Ill guess that a combination of both assumption sets will induce mass adoption (as security will mean that not everything about linked data will be acceptable for risk managers). We need to avoid what killed X.500 / ldap over the last 20 years (even once politics was solved, nobody was EVEN WILLING to publish their customer/corporate user profiles, regardless of what bitformat folks stuffed it into).
The Enterprise and Individual boundaries are blurring. LinkedIn has a
business model based on your comments above from the business aspect.
Ditto Facebook re. individual aspect. As you know, changes occur as a
function of opportunity cost realization and thresholds. Once people
feel pain they look for alternatives. Without this pain (necessity),
innovation doesn't morph into real products/solutions.
FOAF+SSL is an innovation, and the opportunity costs are crystallizing
as a result of LinkedIn, Facebook, and to some degree Google. In all
cases, these walled garden builders are our very best friends -- while
they continue to mangle the private/public user data handling conundrum :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kidehen at openlinksw.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 5:19 PM
> To: Peter Williams
> Cc: foaf-dev at lists.foaf-project.org
> Subject: Re: [foaf-dev] comparing wot against FOAF+SSL
> Peter Williams wrote:
>> I tried to write up the essential differences between the "nature" of
>> the work on the wot vocabulary (as applied to RDF documents and FOAF
>> cards for years) and the more modern work on FOAF+SSL from the linked
>> data community.
>> foaf-dev mailing list
>> foaf-dev at lists.foaf-project.org
> Nice post. For sake of readability, always best to use N-Triples, N3,
> Turtle for your Triple patterns. RDF/XML is horrible for examples since
> it reinforces an old Semantic Web stereotype re. incomprehension. If you
> look at material from the Linked Open Data community, you will notice
> that RDF/XML is rarely used for human facing material.
> People have to be able to see the simplicity of a triple (3-tuple)
> without going cross-eyed and mind mangled via RDF/XML :-)
> I've posted a tweet about your post, but a quick replacement of the
> RDF/XML as I've suggested will make the piece much easier for broader
> audiences to assimilate.
> BTW - OWL (one of the crown jewels of the Semantic Web Project and the
> eventual Web of Linked Data) remains generally misunderstood because the
> W3C spec examples remain RDF/XML based :-(
President & CEO
More information about the foaf-dev