Re: [foaf-dev] Suggestion for WOT vocab - PGP Word List fingerprints
Earle Martin <earle@...
2008-08-06 17:49:07 GMT
Sorry for the delayed response, I was also in transit.
> This kind of redundancy is a little different, since the equivalency
> (like with :mbox_sha1sum) is hard to express in universally understood
> machine form. ...
> The fundamental distinction that can help us here is that of FOAF
> document versus the FOAF vocabulary. ...
> These two are often conflated, but they're not quite the same. I think
> we can be liberal about what goes into FOAF, while conservative about
> raising expectations for what people publish and find in typical FOAF
> files. It might be that the FOAF vocab for eg has :dateOfBirth, yet we
> only publish an age in years on the public Web.
Thanks for this clarification, Dan.
To address Keith's concerns, my feeling is that a FOAF document, in
the sense that most people use it, is a human artifact; so shouldn't
require rigid mathematical purity (i.e., containing only axioms from
which all other information can be derived). Hence the existence of
foaf:name, rather than a mandatory and complex attempt to model the
components of names - although foaf:givenName and foaf:surname do
exist, there is no requirement to use them, and certainly no penalty
for using them as well as the simpler property.
> Earle, how much of this data is out there in the word list form? Tools
> that produce and consume it? Evidence that people actually use this?
> (rather than it being a high class geek code?).
Well, it's not very Web-ish at present - I can't actually find any
data out there to actually be had in this format. It mainly features
as a component of ZRTP ("a protocol for media path Diffie-Hellman
exchange to agree on a session key and parameters for establishing
Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) sessions" -
- which is used by Zfone, Phil Zimmermann's secure VOIP app. I think
its absence from the Web is probably due to the lack of tools
available to translate it, which is why I wrote one myself.
I do think it's a little more useful than the Geek Code, though, to be
honest, and I'd like to encourage its wider usage. (Incidentally, I
tried searching for FOAF files that had one in them, and didn't find
much. I also noticed that both the PGP Word List and the Geek Code
date from 1996. Funny.)
By the way, you said:
> I'm happy putting this kind of data into the FOAF vocabulary...
That would be the WOT vocabulary at present? I recall a while back you
said somewhere you'd considered incorporating the WOT stuff into FOAF
itself, but I think it's fine as is.
Earle Martin | http://downlode.org/
foaf-dev mailing list