Re: Stabilising FOAF terms to use for normative references

Thanks for taking this on, Kjetil.

It's not only POWDER that wants foaf:Organization and other terms 
stabilised. The property is in the Last Call version of the EARL schema 
[1] (I'm pleased to say).

We, that is, POWDER, will probably have a wish list of terms over the 
next month or so so maybe that is the way to take this forward. I wonder 
though if vocabularies are rather like natural language in that they 
exist because people want them to, not because some centralised 
authority decrees that they should exist. For example, the word blog was 
coined, I believe, in 1999 and has become stable through usage, not by 
institutional fiat. If POWDER, EARL and others use foaf:Organization (I 
have to remember to spell it with a z rather than, for me, the more 
natural way with an s!) then does that usage itself create stability?

Phil


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/

Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> Hi all!
> 
> [/me taking his work hat on]
> 
> The POWDER W3C WG [1] has used several properties and classes of FOAF in 
> examples, and during the group's F2F in Boston in January, it was 
> resolved that the group prefers to continue to do so.
> 
> However, a concern was raised about the stability of FOAF. While FOAF is 
> widespread, the community has not clearly expressed a commitment to its 
> stability, it is felt. 
> 
> Now, danbri blogged about exactly that [2], and the response from the 
> POWDER group, and others I believe, is "yes"; we would strongly welcome 
> that the community declares a commitment to keep some parts of the 
> vocabulary stable, depending on the needs of the FOAF community as well 
> as other standardisation efforts. 
> 
> We have used stuff like foaf:Organisation and foaf:maker, but the POWDER 
> group could come up with a list of things we need, and I'd answer 
> danbri's call and volunteer to help with stabilising things.  
> 
> Shall we get started?
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
> [2] http://danbri.org/words/2006/09/23/158
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Kjetil

Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 11:38:07 UTC