Jair Alarcón | 5 Feb 11:00 2010
Picon

[foaf-dev] Some Questions about FOAF

Hello FOAFERS! (Sorry my bad english)

1) Exist a foaf vocabulary for communities? 

2) How use the "knows" subclasses? 

3) How to represent a relation between Member a Community? (Example, this "X" Person is a owner of "Y"
Community and Member of a "Z" Community). Exist a "owner" and "member" relations in foaf?

4) Anyone use FOAF with Jena?

5) Exists some project (open-source) like SIOC that demostrate in practice how FOAF is used?

Thanks a lot my friends! =D
Josef Petrák | 5 Feb 11:41 2010

Re: [foaf-dev] Some Questions about FOAF

Hello Jair,

> Hello FOAFERS! (Sorry my bad english)
> 
> 1) Exist a foaf vocabulary for communities?

In case you mean communities as common, there is SIOC to work with them.

> 2) How use the "knows" subclasses?

You can use either foaf:knows:

?person foaf:knows ?otherPerson .

or use directly subclasses:

?person rel:friendOf ?otherPerson .

What more you need to handle?

> 3) How to represent a relation between Member a Community? (Example, this "X" Person is a owner of "Y"
Community and Member of a "Z" Community). Exist a "owner" and "member" relations in foaf?

In FOAF there is just relation "member". You need to search (or create) more precise relation properties
for groups/organizations.

For "has member" use such triple

?group foaf:member ?person .

(Continue reading)

Kjetil Kjernsmo | 5 Feb 13:55 2010
Picon

Re: [foaf-dev] Some Questions about FOAF


>Hello FOAFERS! (Sorry my bad english)

Hi! No problem!

>1) Exist a foaf vocabulary for communities?

Yeah, that's really the SIOC vocabulary. FOAF and SIOC go very well along 
togehter.

>2) How use the "knows" subclasses?

They are really subproperties, not quite the same thing, but you just use them 
and hope that something recognises it. If the new property paths feature of 
SPARQL goes in, it will be really easy.

>
>4) Anyone use FOAF with Jena?

Yeah, we did that in a project at my previous job. It is not different from any 
other framework.

>5) Exists some project (open-source) like SIOC that demostrate in practice
> how FOAF is used?

I'll recommend having a look at http://knowee.org/ . It uses FOAF, but I have 
not gotten around to install it myself.

>Thanks a lot my friends! =D

(Continue reading)

Story Henry | 5 Feb 18:40 2010
Picon

[foaf-dev] works relation

There are people in foaf, and companies. But there is no way to say that a person works in a company it seems.
What should one do there?

Henry

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Kingsley Idehen | 5 Feb 20:09 2010
Picon

Re: [foaf-dev] works relation

Story Henry wrote:
> There are people in foaf, and companies. But there is no way to say that a person works in a company it seems.
What should one do there?
>
> Henry
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-dev mailing list
> foaf-dev@...
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-dev
>
>   
All,

See: http://vocab.org/relationship/.html

Its linked to FOAF.

This ontology saved me a ton of time when trying to verify some reasoner 
enhancements to Virtuoso re:
owl:SymmetricalProperty, owl:TransitiveProperty, and owl:inverseOf.

Naturally, while working on this, I couldn't stop thinking about Data 
Access policies and FOAF+SSL :-)

Link:

(Continue reading)

Story Henry | 5 Feb 20:16 2010
Picon

Re: [foaf-dev] works relation


On 5 Feb 2010, at 20:09, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> Story Henry wrote:
>> There are people in foaf, and companies. But there is no way to say that a person works in a company it seems.
What should one do there?
>> 
>> Henry
>> 
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> foaf-dev mailing list
>> foaf-dev@...
>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-dev
>> 
>>  
> All,
> 
> See: http://vocab.org/relationship/.html
> 
> Its linked to FOAF.
> 
> This ontology saved me a ton of time when trying to verify some reasoner enhancements to Virtuoso re:
> owl:SymmetricalProperty, owl:TransitiveProperty, and owl:inverseOf.
> 
> Naturally, while working on this, I couldn't stop thinking about Data Access policies and FOAF+SSL :-)

yes, except that this ontology is pretty crap. 
(Continue reading)

Kingsley Idehen | 5 Feb 20:31 2010
Picon

Re: [foaf-dev] works relation

Story Henry wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2010, at 20:09, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>   
>> Story Henry wrote:
>>     
>>> There are people in foaf, and companies. But there is no way to say that a person works in a company it
seems. What should one do there?
>>>
>>> Henry
>>>
>>> Social Web Architect
>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foaf-dev mailing list
>>> foaf-dev@...
>>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-dev
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>> All,
>>
>> See: http://vocab.org/relationship/.html
>>
>> Its linked to FOAF.
>>
>> This ontology saved me a ton of time when trying to verify some reasoner enhancements to Virtuoso re:
>> owl:SymmetricalProperty, owl:TransitiveProperty, and owl:inverseOf.
>>
(Continue reading)

Story Henry | 5 Feb 20:38 2010
Picon

Re: [foaf-dev] works relation


On 5 Feb 2010, at 20:31, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

>> 
>> yes, except that this ontology is pretty crap. 
>> I have pointed out a few years ago that it does not make sense, and I have seen no action to improve it. Take
just for exampel:
>> 
>> <wouldLikeToKnow>     a rdf:Property;
>>         :domain <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person>;
>>         :isDefinedBy <>;
>>         :label "would like to now" <at> en;
>>         :range <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person>;
>>         :subPropertyOf <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows>;
>>         skos:definition "A person whom this person would desire to know more closely." <at> en .
>> 
>> from this if you wouldLikeToKnow someone, then you know them.
>> Which is nonsensical. So I wouldLikeToKnow SamanthaFox, therefore I know her! 
>>  
> Okay, scrap that relation.
> 
> I focused on the employment terms, albeit for my own selfish purposes i.e., verifying new reasoner
features in Virtuoso  :-)

Don't get me wrong. I like the names of all those relations, but until they are a bit surer they should remove
any of the relations that have entailment consequences. But they seem completely unresponsive to
feedback, as far as I can see... So they should be avoided.

Henry

(Continue reading)

Kingsley Idehen | 5 Feb 20:41 2010
Picon

Re: [foaf-dev] works relation

Story Henry wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2010, at 20:31, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>   
>>> yes, except that this ontology is pretty crap. 
>>> I have pointed out a few years ago that it does not make sense, and I have seen no action to improve it. Take
just for exampel:
>>>
>>> <wouldLikeToKnow>     a rdf:Property;
>>>         :domain <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person>;
>>>         :isDefinedBy <>;
>>>         :label "would like to now" <at> en;
>>>         :range <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person>;
>>>         :subPropertyOf <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows>;
>>>         skos:definition "A person whom this person would desire to know more closely." <at> en .
>>>
>>> from this if you wouldLikeToKnow someone, then you know them.
>>> Which is nonsensical. So I wouldLikeToKnow SamanthaFox, therefore I know her! 
>>>  
>>>       
>> Okay, scrap that relation.
>>
>> I focused on the employment terms, albeit for my own selfish purposes i.e., verifying new reasoner
features in Virtuoso  :-)
>>     
>
> Don't get me wrong. I like the names of all those relations, but until they are a bit surer they should remove
any of the relations that have entailment consequences. But they seem completely unresponsive to
feedback, as far as I can see... So they should be avoided.
>   
(Continue reading)

Story Henry | 5 Feb 20:43 2010
Picon

Re: [foaf-dev] works relation

On 5 Feb 2010, at 20:41, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> Story Henry wrote:
>> On 5 Feb 2010, at 20:31, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>>> yes, except that this ontology is pretty crap. I have pointed out a few years ago that it does not make
sense, and I have seen no action to improve it. Take just for exampel:
>>>> 
>>>> <wouldLikeToKnow>     a rdf:Property;
>>>>        :domain <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person>;
>>>>        :isDefinedBy <>;
>>>>        :label "would like to now" <at> en;
>>>>        :range <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person>;
>>>>        :subPropertyOf <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows>;
>>>>        skos:definition "A person whom this person would desire to know more closely." <at> en .
>>>> 
>>>> from this if you wouldLikeToKnow someone, then you know them.
>>>> Which is nonsensical. So I wouldLikeToKnow SamanthaFox, therefore I know her!        
>>> Okay, scrap that relation.
>>> 
>>> I focused on the employment terms, albeit for my own selfish purposes i.e., verifying new reasoner
features in Virtuoso  :-)
>>>    
>> 
>> Don't get me wrong. I like the names of all those relations, but until they are a bit surer they should
remove any of the relations that have entailment consequences. But they seem completely unresponsive to
feedback, as far as I can see... So they should be avoided.
>>  
> Sure, that why "reasoning act" should be subjective re. SPARQL.
(Continue reading)


Gmane