[foaf-protocols] [foaf-dev] revisiting FOAF project goals
kidehen at openlinksw.com
Wed Jun 24 17:28:02 CEST 2009
Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 24/6/09 13:33, Matthew Rowe wrote:
>> 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...
> foaf-dev mailing list
> foaf-dev at lists.foaf-project.org
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..
Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
More information about the foaf-protocols