W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:29:01 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ggoRwwPbR-n9nf6369Bes92ovzuQgXasHv4LV@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Gutteridge <cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Christopher

 I can't help but feel that calling it VOAF is just going to muddy the
> waters. "Friendly vocabularies for the linked data Web"
> doesn't help clarify either. It's cute, but I strongly suggest you at the
> very least make this 'tag line' far more clear.

I agree the current documentation is too sketchy and potentially misleading
as is. I have put efforts mainly on the dataset itself so far, but you're
right it has to be better documented.

Regarding the name, well, the pun is here to stay I'm afraid. I've had
positive feedback from Dan Brickley about it, so I already feel it's too
late to change now.

> Frankly calling something 'voaf' when people will hear it mixed in with
> 'foaf' is just making the world more confusing.

Actually I've not thought much (not at all) about how people would pronounce
or hear it. I principally communicate with vocabularies (and people using
them) through written stuff, and very rarely speak about them. I barely know
how to pronounce OWL, and always feel like a fool when I've to, and will
eventually spell it O.W.L. - as every other french native would do. If I had
to speak about VOAF, I think I would spell it also V.O.A.F.

> I had a lot of confusion until I found out the "SHOCK" vocab people were
> talking about was spelled SIOC.

Interesting, I was confused exactly the other way round. I've read a lot
(and written a bit) about SIOC since it's been around, but realized only two
days ago how it was pronounced when I actually heard someone "speaking"
about it the "right" way ... and thought at first time it was something

> One other minor suggestion;
> Vocabulary<http://graphite.ecs.soton.ac.uk/browser/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mondeca.com%2Ffoaf%2Fvoaf%23Vocabulary#http://www.mondeca.com/foaf/voaf%23Vocabulary>
> → rdfs:subClassOf<http://graphite.ecs.soton.ac.uk/browser/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2F01%2Frdf-schema%23subClassOf#http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema%23subClassOf>
> → void:Dataset<http://graphite.ecs.soton.ac.uk/browser/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Frdfs.org%2Fns%2Fvoid%23Dataset#http://rdfs.org/ns/void%23Dataset>
> might be a mistake because void:Dataset is defined as "A set of RDF
> triples that are published, maintained or aggregated by a single provider."

Not a bug, but a feature. It's exactly what a voaf:Vocabulary is.

and it may be that you would want to define non RDF vocabs using this.

You might want to do that but I don't and I'm the vocabulary creator
(right?) so I can insist on the fact that this is really meant to describe
*RDF* vocabularies, and cast this intention in the stone of formal
If you want to describe other kind of vocabularies the same way, feel free
to use or create something else. Or extend foaf:Vocabulary to a more generic
class. It's an open world, let thousand flowers blossom :)

> I see no value in making this restriction.

The value I see is to keep this vocabulary use focused on what it was meant



Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Engineering
Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 23:29:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:11 UTC