[foaf-dev] Fwd: Re: [pedantic-web] Pedantic Web Challenge 2011 [Winner = Antoine Zimmermann]

Bob Ferris zazi at elbklang.net
Fri Jan 7 16:54:19 CET 2011

Although, this issue is already known by some of you. I think it is good 
to forward this discussion also to the FOAF dev mailing list.



-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [pedantic-web] Pedantic Web Challenge 2011 [Winner = 
Antoine Zimmermann]
Datum: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 13:39:25 +0000
Von: Richard Cyganiak <richard at cyganiak.de>
Antwort an: pedantic-web at googlegroups.com
An: pedantic-web at googlegroups.com
CC: <antoine.zimmermann at gmail.com>

Congrats, Antoine! Well deserved, well deserved.

On 6 Jan 2011, at 23:43, Hogan, Aidan wrote:
> That said, I don't see any clear blame in this case. My inclination for
> a fix would be to get FOAF to weaken the foaf:knows domain/range axioms.
> Another possibility would be to get identi.ca [3] to remove the
> foaf:knows relations and just go with sioc:follows on users.
> Thoughts?

I'd put the blame on identi.ca for using foaf:knows as the relationship 
between its users.

“foaf:knows - A person known by this person (indicating some level of 
reciprocated interaction between the parties).” [1]

This property is inappropriate here for two reasons.

First, identi.ca doesn't seem to discourage organizations to have 
accounts, but foaf:knows assumes that it would only be persons.

Second, following someone on identi.ca does not imply “reciprocated 
interaction” -- there are probably users that are followed by thousands 
of other users, and it's very unlikely they have interacted with all of 

But in all fairness, it's hard to say what would be the Right Thing to 
do for identi.ca here. Part of the blame lies with FOAF for not 
providing any less restrictive properties for relating people or agents. 
Sure there's sioc:follows, but it relates *accounts* rather than 
*agents*, so it's on a different level of abstraction.

(In the spirit of fixing things rather than just complaining (or rather, 
in the spirit of fixing things *in addition to* just complaining), I 
talked to FOAF's Dan Brickley on #swig about the possibility of a new 
property in FOAF -- see [2] for chatlog, and I took an action to write a 
blog post on the issue. Oh and Aidan, you don't want to click on [3]!)


[1] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_knows
[2] http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2011-01-07#T12-12-45
[3] http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2011-01-07#T12-31-47

> Cheers,
> Aidan
> @Antoine, the second part of your prize is the privilege of contacting
> W3C, identi.ca, FOAF and DBPedia to let these guys know. :)
> [1] http://dbpedia.org/page/World_Wide_Web_Consortium
> [2] http://dbpedia.org/ontology/owner
> [3] http://identi.ca/w3c/foaf

More information about the foaf-dev mailing list