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

Re: FOAF/DC Terms discussion summary and PROPOSED RESOLUTION

From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@uninsubria.it>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:56:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4874B57C.9080900@uninsubria.it>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de

Hi, Dan.

> [snip]
> 
>> And then we need to work with Dan and others to see whether FOAF 
>> itself might include an Agent sub class that is more tailored to our 
>> needs.
> 
> Yes please. 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.

In the CONTACT voc [1] there's a class contact:SocialEntity, which is a 
superclass of contact:Person (and since foaf:Person is defined as a 
subclass of contact:Person [2], contact:SocialEntity is a superclass 
also of foaf:Person). Do you think this can be re-used for the above 
purpose?

About foaf:Group, do you think it makes sense to define a subclass 
foaf:SocialGroup?

Andrea

[1]http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact
[2]http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/index.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 12:57:10 GMT

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