POWDER and FOAF

Hey Dan,

You mentioned on the SWCG call the other day that you were going to take 
a look at the POWDER doc wrt. to its use of FOAF, and I promised to 
clarify exactly what our dependency is. Here's my bit...

There's a generic example of a Description Resource at [1], followed by 
an account of each element.

The only term we _require_ is foaf:maker. Its range of foaf:Agent and 
that class's sub classes are sufficient for a valid DR. We do not 
specify exactly what information a publisher must provide - the 
expectation is that people will use a mix of FOAF, vCard and who knows 
what else.

The only other FOAF term referred to explicitly is foaf:depiction. This 
is not included in the example but is mentioned in the text immediately 
following it around the discussion of line 17.

We have, however, specified a new term that has a domain of foaf:Agent 
which is discussed at [2] and in our vocabulary doc at [3].

Please let me know if any of this is troublesome. I know the group will 
be pleased to hear that the FOAF vocabulary is going to be managed under 
the auspices of Dublin Core (which we also refer to of course).

Two other questions for you if I may:

1. Are you , or is anyone else, planning to do anything with the Web of 
Trust vocabulary [4]?

2. We would _really_ appreciate your input on our 'big question.' 
Referring back to [1] for a minute, we're trying to establish which of 
two possible structures is better for a DR. These are set out in a big 
'TBD' note in the doc. Among those in the group who have some RDF 
experience, feeling is split. Among those with less RDF background the 
cry is 'we need more information' - hence a gentle request in your 
direction!

Thanks

Phil.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-powder-dr-20070925/#eg2-1
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-powder-dr-20070925/#discover
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-voc/#drAuthenticate
[4] http://xmlns.com/wot/0.1/

Received on Friday, 19 October 2007 10:03:24 UTC