<foaf:community>?

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

Hmmmm it looks like my previous message disappeared into the aether 
there (apologies if it reappears at some point).

------
This is a note to say that I have made some further changes to the 
thoughts/ideas I put forward (although I'm still unsure if this is 
quite the right way of going about things) thanks to the input of 
various people here (esp. Bill). Things are looking much more 
simplifed and there is now only one proposed namespace (com).

The first is a refinement on how it might be applied to a more 
discrete entity (like a web site - hence the mention of a fictional 
WN 1.7 RDF document) which describes itself and then lists its 
members adding in extra information if they have an official position 
in the community (I have left in a number ways of addressing this 
although I am leaning towards a straight listing of a basic version 
of a members FOAF file with a link through and com:position to 
express any position they hold):

http://development.gurusnetwork.com/work/emperor/xml/com.txt

The second document now uses something similar to describe a vaguer 
definition of the term community, like the community of stamp 
collectors, (with its connections to other communities and then a 
list of the various entities that belong too it):

http://development.gurusnetwork.com/work/emperor/xml/sig.txt

This could now be used to express differnt styles of community like 
corporations, universities, charities, web sites, vaguer groups 
connected by their joint interest, etc. More specialist namespaces 
might be needed to fully describe some entities (like a financial one 
is required for this to fully replace FOAFCorp) but I'd like to keep 
the community markup as simple and flexible as possible.

---

I'm happier with this version (apologies for the frequency of changes 
and updates) although I still have some aims/concerns:

1. That I'm still not using WordNet properly.

2. That things could be trimmed down some more and made more flexible.

3. That there is plenty of room for using RDF, DC markup instead.

4. That there are conceptual issues about belonging and such like to 
be addressed.

Thanks for the feedback so far.

Regards,
Emps