[foaf-protocols] [foaf-dev] revisiting FOAF project goals

[Kingsley Idehen]

Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 24/6/09 13:33, Matthew Rowe wrote:
>   
>> Hello
>>
>> I concur with what Dave has said here, particularly regarding the need
>> to explicitly define topics of relationships and associated trust values.
>>
>> I think that the latter issue (assigning trust values to relationships)
>> as this appears to becoming especially important now that work within
>> the Semantic Web community is moving towards trust.
>>     
>
> Quick thought here - though I've written about it a little before - is 
> that a flexible Groups mechanism takes off some of the pressure to 
> explicitly define direct interpersonal relationship types. Instead we 
> let users enumerate various kinds of group that make sense to them. So 
> rather than create inSameBookClubAs relations between Alice and Bob, we 
> allow Alice and/or Bob and or the Book Club to write a description of 
> the people in that group. Having a first class object (the group) 
> provides also an extensibility hook for additional properties. As often 
> noted, this is hard with simple flat RDF triples...
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-dev mailing list
> foaf-dev at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-dev
>
>   
Dan,

Yes, this is what I mean by: policies.

A user should be able to identify themselves (since they know themselves 
best) via FOAF+SSL based Web IDs. They should also be able to construct 
"data space" specific policies that deal with access, trust, and 
reputation as perceived through the lenses of  the data space owner's 
world view etc..

-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com