[rdfweb-dev] Which Person wrote this FOAF?

[Edd Dumbill]

On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 10:45, Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) wrote:
> This probably supports the addition of a foaf:file or something in the 
> place of seeAlso.

To have such a construct would probably be a bad idea.  There will never
be guaranteed one source of information about anyone -- this is how the
web works and a fundamental assumption of FOAF -- so to codify such an
expectation in the vocabulary is either: (a) incorrect, if foaf:file
implies a 1:1 authoritativeness, or (b) redundant, if you don't imply a
1:1 relationship, you don't get any more than seeAlso gives you.

It's also eminently fakeable.  I could start littering the interweb with
foaf:file statements for somebody else, pointing to files of my own
invention.

In short: foaf:file would tend to give false assurances that consuming
software really can't support.

> It could be used in statements about statements (i.e. 
> to say this info came from Foo's foaf file).

Well, we can already record the URL we found the information at.  If
there's a foaf:maker or foaf:made property connected to that URL, we can
record (unverified) author information.  And if a verifiable digital
signature is in place, we can then make a trust decision on that
information, based on how much we trust the key we have for that person.

>  Other ways of documenting 
> where information came from when merging foaf files could be better as a 
> solution, but in general I agree in the importance of knowing where a 
> particular statement occured. Could be used in constructing weighted 
> graphs based on trust metrics etc.

I agree on this importance, but it does not necessitate creating
something like a "foaf:file" term.  maker, made and dig sigs can get us
pretty far on in that.

-- Edd