[foaf-protocols] WebID Protocol / WOT Ontology

Henry Story henry.story at bblfish.net
Mon Sep 20 11:21:15 CEST 2010

On 20 Sep 2010, at 10:50, Melvin Carvalho wrote:

> In terms of branding I think this is a bit geeky (although perhaps more
> correct).  We want to say to the world, 'put your public key in your FOAF'.
> Another thought (again adoption oriented) is whether some of these terms can
> go into the top level FOAF space, for ease of publication.  It's starting to
> seem as fundamental as OnlineAccount etc.

Branding is a really complex issue. 

Though it could go into foaf, so could many other things, such as the relationship 
vocabulary, sioc, etc...

Some could argue that all these namespace are problematic and add to the
size of a foaf file. But RDFa profiles I believe will solve that problem.
I hope the cert ontology could make it into a foaf profile :-) That
would be useful.
Though most of us here really like foaf for others this could complicated issues. 
The W3C ontology we have currently neatly separates concerns. When presenting
to the W3C some thought WebID was tied to foaf, and they did not necessarily
want to buy into foaf.  By separating the cert ontology from foaf, we don't have 
to be fighting two  battles simultaneously in a standards committee. That
can be very useful. And having a standard stamped by a well known standards body
is going to do a lot more for our branding in many places than the prefix in
an ontology in a rdf file.


Social Web Architect

More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list