[rdfweb-dev] Which Person wrote this FOAF?

[Dan Brickley]

* Julian Bond <julian_bond at voidstar.com> [2003-07-29 11:31+0100]
> Edd Dumbill <edd at usefulinc.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 09:24, Julian Bond wrote:
> >>I was going round and round last night trying to understand this.
> >
> >[ .. then lots of pertinent stuff .. ]
> >
> >Have you seen Dan's post on the blog from yesterday?  It addresses
> >exactly what you're talking about.
> >
> >"Pages about people"
> >http://rdfweb.org/mt/foaflog/archives/000052.html
> 
> This seems to imply that people should be *strongly* encouraged to put 
> <foaf:made rdf:resource=""/> into the foaf:Person that's about them. And 
> then for Explorers to use that data.
> 
> I was kind of hoping I'd missed some RDF detail but apparently not.

Yup, this is a genuine open issue. I should make a bugzilla entry for
it...
> 
> In Ecademy's case although I "made" the feeds as programmer, the data 
> was "made" by the person. So I think putting <foaf:made 
> rdf:resource=""/> into the primary Person in a feed is still valid.

Yes, I think there's a reasonable line we can take here: the Person made
the document, indirectly by using the Ecademy tools. Another person
use vi, emacs, RDFAuthor, or XSLT to make their FOAF file, but the
software/service is serving largely as a means to an end, and the act of 
publication is driven by someone who is (arguably) aware of what they're 
doing. It is a slippery slope though, not clear what counts as concent
versus 'i didn't know what that checkbox did so I clicked on it'.

For representing the tools that helped create the RDF, seems like 
http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/modules/admin/ from RSS should help; 
 
   <admin:generatorAgent
          rdf:resource="http://Orchard.SourceForge.net/1.2/"/>
   ...or somesuch to indicate the software + version that created the
   file.

Dan