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

Re: FOAF/DC Terms discussion summary and PROPOSED RESOLUTION

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:47:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4874B369.9060304@icra.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de



Dan Brickley wrote:
[snipping very useful comments for which thank you]

> 
> Here's a candidate proposal:
> 
> a class SocialAgent which is subClassOf Agent, and a superclass of 
> Organization, Group, Person. We might at some point include a class 
> Company too, below Organization. Note that Group is a Group of agents, 
> and not necessarily 'social agents' (eg. pets etc allowed, in general). 
> So there would be some room for nitpicking around that.
> 

Almost... it's the accountability thing that we need to get across which 
leads me to suggest accountableAgent (bit long I know but it has the 
desired feel). The essence of POWDER being that you can go back to 
whoever is the identified author of the document and say "did you really 
say that example.org is mobileOK? 'cos if you did I'll include it in my 
search results, otherwise I'll assume it's not."

So the notion of SocialAgent indicating that the creative act was 
performed by people cf. software is useful but, well, I might trust a 
content analyser just as much/more than I trust a bunch of people - and 
I'd still want to check that, if repeated, the analysis would come out 
the same.

Something to cogitate on over a beer sometime methinks. For now I'm 
editing documents to say that FOAF and DC are both fine but you MUST use 
one or the other and not make up your own vocabulary.
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 12:48:29 GMT

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