Shared publicly  - 
 
+Michael Hausenblas Wondering about the use of MUST in this W3C Draft for reference to elements in vocabularies which are far from being established and stable standards, e.g., "Buildings and Rooms Vocabulary". FOAF itself is not a de jure standard, even if it is a de facto standard (at least its main elements). If this vocabulary is intended to become a W3C Recommendation, it will be stable and therefore will assume stability (sustainability and responsibility) of vocabularies it references.
Terms for describing people
1
Bernard Vatant's profile photoPierre-Yves Vandenbussche's profile photoE Keathley's profile photoPeter DeVries's profile photo
9 comments
 
Yes, +Bernard Vatant good point. We (that is +Phil Archer and I) are in the process of aligning/merging with EC's ISA Core Vocabs and this and other things will be addressed, for sure. For now, consider mainly section 2 (use cases) as sort of stable and, at least IMO, the section 6 (i14y/mappings) is an important piece for future developments. HTH?
 
Yes, although it's of course nice to see "MUST use FOAF", in general the whole RDF design tends away from such strong language. RDF is very passive in itself. Unlike with XML where you should have this, or shouldn't have that, RDF just helps interpret whatever you find. This can cause frustration as it means that RDF datasets are more unpredictable than e.g. XML datasets. So sometimes when you want in RDF an assurance akim to XML's, of what you'll find in the data, people turn to e.g. SPARQL patterns and closed world validation tools (e.g. SPIN). Very old notes on this are up in the FOAF blog still, http://blog.foaf-project.org/2003/07/missing-isnt-broken-data-validation-and-freedom-on-the-semantic-web/ ... and some slightly less old notes here (with broken images, sorry), http://danbri.org/words/2005/07/30/114

Also while I'm here, I wanted to say that if this vocab convergence process gives rise to suggestions for schema.org, I'm all ears!
 
I'm still learning, so pardon a basic question - but who holds the authority file, if there is one?
 
Hi :) I guess when I hear "Authority file" I think of rather large lists of entities (topics, names) that need constant update. With FOAF lately we might do a tweak every year or so, but it hasn't changed a lot recently. Maybe it's that time again soon though...
 
What is not clear from this is how do related people to publications that they have authored. I am primarily interested in linking species to their original published descriptions but this use is just a subset of the linking between an author and their publications.
Add a comment...