[rdfweb-dev] Proposal: Names in FoaF

[Bill Kearney]

> I like this approach, as you say foaf:name is purely for display purposes,
> and foaf:nick/givenName as a short display name.

This assumes thatfoaf:nick will be a name nickname, what if it's not?  Are the
specs clear on this?

> I'm very much against
> having middleName as a givenName as a substitute for middleName (which
> doesn't exist) my middle name, is definately neither a familyName (derived
> from my family) nor is it a givenName (a name that I would respond to) it's
> simply part of my name.

+1

> I personally would like to leave foaf with simply foaf:name, and foaf:nick -
> and leave others to a more sophisticated naming vocab, which is tailored
> more to the geneological.  My belief is that foaf namespace is best left
> with what can be modelled simply and without contention, names are not that.

I disagree on the elimination of naming entirely from foaf.  Really, what are
the real numbers behind applications/users needing to express the data in ways
that 'western style' appelations won't handle?  Is this a case of being 'too
perfect' such that it wrecks the larger value?

I'd certainly support expressing that the name conventions are intended as those
expressed in a western context.  Should another context be needed this is where
Jim's suggestion of having a 'better' vocabulary is a good idea.

Make no mistake, I'm not in favor of forcing western style naming conventions,
I'm simply suggesting that since the staggering majority of uses for this will
USE that style that it's sort of silly to worry about it.  Putting that data
into an agreed upon alternatve vocabulary with a stable way of indicating it's
presense seems like a much more practical approach.

-Bill Kearney