[doap-interest] relating doap:homepage and foaf:homepage
Dan Brickley
danbri at w3.org
Thu Sep 23 12:46:51 BST 2004
Hi Edd,
(aside: the rdfs:domain of foaf:homepage was recently broadened from
foaf:Agent to rdfs:Resource, ie, anything can in principle have a
homepage now).
If it's the case that anything that has a doap:homepage of X also has a
foaf:homepage of X, would you consider amending the DOAP schema
at http://usefulinc.com/ns/doap to assert this?
In passing, we probably shouldn't assert that anything with a foaf:homepage of Y
also has a doap:homepage of Y, since that'd imply (per doap:homepage's
rdfs:domain of doap:Project) that it'd be a doap:Project, and there are
many non-Project things with foaf:homepage.
The addition would be
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage"/>
...this should btw let us share work on translations of comparable
schema terms :)
If you're ok with this, I could put corresponding statements into the
FOAF schema.
A FAQ draft:
Q: Why does DOAP have its own property called doap:homepage
instead of using the existing and widely used foaf:homepage
property?
A: doap:homepage has additional semantics; it is defined
as being applicable only to things that are in the doap:Project
class (expressed using rdfs:domain in the DOAP schema). This
means that whenever you claim that some thing, let's call it X,
has a doap:homepage of some thing, Y, you're implicitly
claiming that X is a doap:Project.
More generally, all RDF vocabularies encounter this
question: how self-contained should they be? The DOAP design tries
to find a middle ground between two extremes - it uses bits of
FOAF where relevant, but doesn't try to draw on dozens of
relevant but scattered RDF vocabularies.
Not wanting to put words into your mouth, of course. But that's my take
on the DOAP design tradeoffs...
cheers,
Dan
ps. see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw/2004Sep/0004.html
http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2004/09/23/2004-09-23.html#1095929014.190278
for more context (I'd like to show data merging between DOAP, FOAF and
SWED project descriptions...)
ps. OWL folks are urging me to drop the owl:import statements in the
FOAF schema, which I'll probably do at the next update, replacing them
with rdfs:seeAlso. You might want to consider doing the same. It's all
voodoo anyway and as far as I'm concerned rdfs:seeAlso was all I really
cared to assert!
More information about the doap-interest
mailing list