W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Revisiting foaf:maker

From: Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:38:49 +0300
To: public-powderwg@w3.org
Cc: Pythagoras Karapiperis <pythk@iit.demokritos.gr>
Message-ID: <20080709083849.GA10788@iit.demokritos.gr>

I'm just after consulting Pythagoras on this, who pointed out that:
(a) FOAF and vCard have the same fields, and
(b) there is a W3C endorsed mapping between vCard and RDF [1]

Thus, if POWDER/XML uses wdr: versions of the elements in [1],
POWDER/XML attributions can be easily turned in FOAF/RDF, vCard/RDF or
vCard files, all very interesting and opening many possibilities for
integration with other pieces of software (PIM, email agents, etc.)
Futhermore, the POWDER-S semantics could be using the vocab in [1]
effectively to speak about FOAF things, circumventing the lack of a
standardization body behind FOAF.

If that's not attractive, NCSR favours any of the solutions allowing a
POWDER authoring tool to write out FOAF, like:
(a) leaving everything as it stands,
(b) permiting either of dcterms:creator or foaf:maker

Best,
s


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf

On Wed Jul  9 08:00:50 2008 Phil Archer said:

> Aha! Right, thank you, I think that gives us a way forward, cake and  
> eating-wise. Taking all this on board (and not without sympathy to  
> Paul's point!) how about this:
>
> We use <creator> -> dcterms:creator -> dcterms:Agent in our examples
>
> We state that <maker> -> foaf:maker -> foaf:Agent is an acceptable  
> alternative, noting that, at the time of this writing, it seems likely  
> that the two will come into even closer alignment
>
> WDYT?
>
> Phil
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 08:39:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:13 GMT