SIOC team has come up with an idea for "2 weeks of SIOC wishes":
You are encouraged to respond by writing here / on your blog / twitter
/ [you name it] about your wishes for SIOC:
- what new applications would you like to see?
- what features / bugfixes are you looking for in existing applications?
- new ontology terms or integration with other ontologies?
- [better] explanations of SIOC terms or answers to puzzling questions needed?
- ...
Let's brainstorm a bit so that we get a feel of what the community wants.
The activity runs from today until the end of April. Will summarize
received ideas after that.
Wiki is a good place to record ideas: http://wiki.sioc-project.org/w/WishList
Uldis
I'll perhaps make obvious how lame I'm am at understanding RDF, but
there is not RDF equivalent of http 301 Moved Permanently status?
--
Olivier G.
http://twitter.com/lespacedunmatin
http://www.lespacedunmatin.info/blog/
While UserAccount more clearly explains what is being represented, User
is still not a bad name.
A large portion of SIOC is being generated automatically, so fixing
thousands of pages in an application would most likely require only a
few changes, but I'm willing to bet that there is quite a bit of
hand-made SIOC that wouldn't get updated.
If everyone is in favor of it, I don't have a problem. I'm just
wondering how many applications will get broken because they're not
doing full infrencing on the data.
Daniel E. Renfer
xri: @id*duck
If any clarifications/changes to definition of foaf:OnlineAccount would
help here, let me know.
cheers
Dan
Is that a better alternative, though?
For one thing it won't solve the problem that we were discussing in
this thread - the change still impacts applications working with
SIOC.
> If any clarifications/changes to definition of foaf:OnlineAccount would
> help here, let me know.
Regardless of changes to sioc:User, it would be good to "sync" its
definition with foaf:OnlineAccount. Currently sioc:User subclasses it
but does not really use properties that are associated with
foaf:OnlineAccount.
Good to know that the definition of foaf:OnlineAccount can be adjusted
if necessary.
All, any suggestions how to proceed?
Uldis
For me lately, I think the core idea of an OnlineAccount is that it is
something that exemplifies shared control: between some user and some
service provider. This has several aspects. Data sourced from the
account is sometimes from the user, sometimes from the service provider.
So I have been looking at ways of indicating which parts have been
supplied or checked by the provider (eg. email verified, openid
verified, or stuff like trust rankings). Also typically there are ways
in which a user can demonstrate control over some account. Openid is the
obvious one here, but email verification codes, text messages etc are
also used. Finally, I am thinking that the machinery familiar from vcard
where we have "home" "work" etc flags for phone numbers, fax etc should
be applicable to anything that is an OnlineAccount. Does this fit with
SIOC perspective? Why can't I say "this is my Work Blog, my Home IM, my
work phone number, my home bookmarks, my work activity stream, etc?
Dan
> We can probably track down most of them (the majority) - but I'd like
> to hear about any other potential side effects before we change it.
Another side effect would be that the ontology will have changed but
we can not change published papers that talk about SIOC and mention
sioc:User. But, since the proposal is to deprecate sioc:User (with a
note pointing to its replacement) and not to delete it, this is not a
big issue.
Uldis