<foaf:community>?

[The Emperor <the_emperor at m...>]

Bill,

> > but it didn't seem to have the finer division that might be
> > important. For vaguer concepts (like cliques or social circles) it
> > might already be expressed in the knows relationships
> 
> A relationship is one thing. What kind of relationship is another.
> 
> <ns:group rdf:datatype="http://example.com/types#clique" />
> <ns:group rdf:datatype="http://example.com/types#fraternity" />
> <ns:group rdf:datatype="http://example.com/types#treehouse" />
> 
> Or the WordNet stuff could be used as well. The idea there is that 
groups are
> known. While as the same time different types of groups are 
known. So one
> could say person X belongs to Y number of groups without having to 
say person X
> belongs to Y number of groupA, groupB, groupC, etc.
> 
> Avoiding, for now, the ambiguity of what consistutes "belonging" to 
something.
> To follow Dan's thinking, your group states members. Those members 
would also
> have to add a reference stating they belong to your group. Using a 
generic
> group type might probably be a lot easier for them. That way they 
just express
> belonging to the group, without it's type being defined. The group 
itself,
> however, defines it's type. That'd get used to pivot around the 
different group
> types. Grafting a group type into the members assertion seems like 
it would
> really complicate things.
> 
> > but I'm more
> > interested in something that is halfway between that and a company
> > roster (which could be expressed with FOAFCorp?). I can (and 
partly)
> > have set up the discussion board on the site of one of the
> > communities I visit to pump out FOAF files for everyone so this 
could
> > be taken as an authoritative linking of that person with that
> > community and the link to their FOAF file could be the relation
> > identifier above. As emails are authenticated it could also be 
used
> > to vouch for you being who you said you were.
> 
> Sure, the group foaf indicates the members. The user foaf 
indicates their own
> groups. The linkage follows around.

OK and we can use something like WordNet to indicate their 
status/position in the community - I had a play with this:

<com:status rdf:about="http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Administrator">
<foaf:Person>
<foaf:name>Someone</foaf:name>
<foaf:mbox_sha1sum>1239474747474747474</foaf:mbox_sha1sum>
<rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="http://domain.com/foaf.rdf" />
</foaf:Person>
</com:status>

but it should be possible to actually express things without that and 
go for:

<foaf:Person>
<foaf:name>Someone</foaf:name>
<foaf:mbox_sha1sum>1239474747474747474</foaf:mbox_sha1sum>
<rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="http://domain.com/foaf.rdf" />
<dc:Relation> 
<rdf:Description> 
<dc:Relation.Type>isPartOf</dc:Relation.Type>

<dc:Relation.Identifier>http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Moderator-
2</dc:Relation.Identifier> 
</rdf:Description> 
</dc:Relation>
</foaf:Person>

and we wouldn't need to define anything for the member status 
because, as you say, being on the list would mean that you are a 
member without having to add anything else.

It should then be possible to use something similar to define its 
position within a group or groups with the link up to the wider group 
being a simple link while the group file would hold more data about 
the relationship with the subgroups and the communities, etc.

OK thanks for those tips - It does look like it is possible to do 
without any new namespaces. I suppose in the end the problem becomes 
that the files are increasingly bloated when a new namespace could 
simplify things and make the actual markup more meaningful.

Thanks again.

Regards,
Emps