[rdfweb-dev] foaf.rdf as a requirement

[Bill Kearney]

> Actually this is an excellent idea !   But I think it *should* be a
> requirement.  I'm aware of the trend when writing standards to make only
> minimum restrictions,  but there are some times where the benefits of
> resticting far outweigh the loss of freedom.  This is such a case.
> Check out the list of foaf.rdf files provided by [1] below.  To be on
> this list is so very easy,  you give up so very little ... if we all did
> it, then the foaf space would be far easier to find.   Why not specifiy
> this as a requirement ?

To specify such a requirement would introduce undue hardship on environments
that may not be able to craft the URL in that fixed format.  That and it'll end
up wasting tremendous cycles with people arguing over what should be the 'one
true URL form' for it.  And to what gain?  To allow easier googling?  If this
means people desiring delivery of foaf data from script.php or something other
than the foaf.rdf moniker are excluded I can't see how this would be a good
thing.

If you're going to search for something, search for the FoaF namespace URI
instead.  That's *required* to be present in a document that contains foaf data.

-Bill Kearney