[rdfweb-dev] Proposal: Names in FoaF

[Graham Klyne]

I think that's fine, if you can maintain common terms for common processing 
functions (e.g. foaf:name as a general display name).  Without this, I 
think you end up needing to run inference rules over the foaf data before 
performing any common processing task.

#g
--

At 06:40 26/04/2003 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
>[snip]
>
>I have been thinking about a compromise:
>
>Perhaps we've been too ambitious, seeking a single
>set of vocabulary terms that will augment foaf:name in a way
>that works for everyone on the planet.
>
>It seems clear that foaf:givenName and foaf:familyName (or
>somesuch) won't work for many many people. But also that
>there are a fair number of people who could be usefully
>described in this way.
>
>How about we simply back away from the assumption that there
>is a one-size fits all solution, while leaving the western-ish
>vocab in FOAF for those who have a use for it, and welcoming
>suggestions for further vocab that'll describe non-western naming
>patterns. These could be part of FOAF or in separate vocabularies;
>either works for me.
>
>Just as foaf:workplaceHomepage doesn't cover the billions of people
>whose employers don't have websites, there are other constructs in
>FOAF which won't be applicable to everyone. This is a perfectly
>pluralistic approach, I believe, since FOAF (and RDF) doesn't make
>the assumption that there is a standard 'FOAF record format' with
>mandatory fields of any kind. Properties that aren't applicable or
>useful simple needn't be used.
>
>How does that sound?
>
>Dan
>
>_______________________________________________
>rdfweb-dev mailing list
>rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
>http://rdfweb.org/mailman/listinfo/rdfweb-dev

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK at NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E