[foaf-dev] Re: updated FOAF spec

[Dan Brickley]

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Wow Dan, a long email:-)
> 
> I think asking the SWD for advise on the meaning of the stable etc terms
> is a good idea. I am not sure I like the term 'testing' but I do not see
> any better... but the general idea about those look fine to me. But the
> SKOS terminology looks o.k. to me, I must say I do not have a better
> text at the moment.

I'll put something like the SKOS usage into the next rev then, ... 
perhaps also noting potential future use of the OWL "deprecated" 
mechanisms, although (like DCMI) leaving terms in the namespace 
indefinitely. Also it would help clarify the spec if the proposed and 
rescinded terms were in their own part of the document, rather than all 
mixed together.

> Note the DC equivalents:
> 
> http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/process/#status
> 
> Is another example (I guess you know that one). Conforming is pretty
> much foaf's stable, I guess. Registered is a bit like 'unstable', I am
> not sure what corresponds to 'testing'. In any case, having the
> 'obsolete' may make sense in future too (note that DCI keeps them in the
> namespace, just advises people not to use that any more). Having said
> that, 'unstable' conveys a stronger message to user than 'registered' I
> guess..

Yep, there's slightly different emphasis there. But both are variations 
on "noted"...


> RDF/ontology crawlers is a good way to measure but we can also include
> simply time. You know, the kind of thing which says 'you have 2 business
> days to react...':-) If a term is out there, marked and tested and no
> major issues are raised for X months, than we can consider that as
> stable, too. It is very down-to-Earth, and may have to be combined with
> other measures, but may help.

Yes, we've employed that kind of process before. It can work well, but 
its useful to balance it with more investigative efforts, particularly 
while SemWeb is (still) in its formative years and we're trying to 
please all of the people, all of the time. Besides in general it would 
be good to have a more complete picture of the SW deployment landscape.

> Getting the FOAF on the CG topics regularly is no problem with me, but
> it requires your presence... so you should tell me when you are around!
> I can bug you regularly, of course...:-)

Life is getting less crazy, although schedule clashes (like next week) 
still happen. Am happy to be bugged regularly about this!

cheers,

Dan