W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > September 2018

Re: DBpedia & foaf:surname

From: Gutteridge C.J. <totl@soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:49:27 +0000
To: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <04efbdad-01e1-6610-dd67-fb2d4c2f375d@soton.ac.uk>
A solution we used was to have a cross over period where we supplied 
both.  Our data service is much lower profile than dbpedia but this 
approach can still work. Adding in foaf:familyName and an rdfs:comment 
with something like "foaf:surname is deprecated and foaf:familyName 
should be used instead. foaf:surname will be removed from this interface 
on or after 2019-12-31."

On 24/09/2018 13:29, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> Hi.
> My apologies if this is a well-known issue that has been resolved, but I can't recall anything on the LOD list.
> DBpedia uses foaf:surname
> According to the spec (https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fxmlns.com%2Ffoaf%2Fspec%2F&amp;data=01%7C01%7Ctotl%40soton.ac.uk%7C3f128bca3a954f96e6e508d6221a14d6%7C4a5378f929f44d3ebe89669d03ada9d8%7C1&amp;sdata=FSLpg5sBdSYw45uDFWG5e1bU3qHZgzW0%2B%2BV4TUx44s4%3D&amp;reserved=0), this is an Archaic form, and the Core (Testing!) form is foaf:familyName
> (DBpedia does use the Core foaf:givenName.)
> Occasionally I find this quite awkward, when combining sources, and indeed I find myself using foaf:surname in my own data for compatibility.
> (Which really sticks in my craw :-) )
> I think that foaf:familyName is more culturally neutral, and easier for non-English-speaking people to comprehend, which is why the FOAF team chose it as Core, I presume.
> ====================================
> So, would there be any enthusiasm among consumers here for asking the excellent DBpedia team if we can have foaf:familyName?
> ====================================
> I doubt that they/we would want to move to it, because that would break legacy stuff that already depends on having foaf:surname, which probably includes some of my own stuff :-)
> But simply adding foaf:familyName wouldn't be a big deal for their tooling, I guess, and shouldn't break existing consumers' stuff.
> (Ain't that the nice thing about RDF!)
> If you don't want to discuss it here, but simply say "yes" or "no" etc, so we can get a sense of things, I've created a Poll at
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2Fforms%2FG1yCegjFm3fVHAg62&amp;data=01%7C01%7Ctotl%40soton.ac.uk%7C3f128bca3a954f96e6e508d6221a14d6%7C4a5378f929f44d3ebe89669d03ada9d8%7C1&amp;sdata=%2F9ct36EyDHbPo6nc1CFgSpkAuwFw21A6%2FMlEpHbGerI%3D&amp;reserved=0
> (sorry if the Poll is crap - I haven't done one before!)
> I have no idea how the suggestion might be received by the DBpedia team - it may be that they will like it a lot, but having a sense of enthusiasm for it might be useful to prioritise etc..
> I'll give it a few days and see what happens and report back here.
> Best

Christopher Gutteridge <totl@soton.ac.uk>
You should read our team blog at http://blog.soton.ac.uk/webteam/

Received on Monday, 24 September 2018 12:49:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:22:47 UTC