Change sioc:User to sioc:UserAccount?
Stephane Corlosquet
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Jack Park <jack...@gmail.com> wrote:
Recently deeply engaged in adding SIOC to my topic map platform, I
came to the sioc:User designation and thought it to be troublesome in
this sense: a userAccount is one thing, a user is another. That
sioc:User means someone's online account, IMHO, should be specified as
a userAccount; a user could be any foaf:Agent, which is not an
account, unless i'm missing something. What am I missing?
Regarding Person vs. User - we still need to vote as to whether to
change User to UserAccount to clarify things. Am happy to do this if
others still agree.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Alexandre Passant <alexandr...@deri.org> wrote:
I'm finally OK with that.
We need to ensure that both can still live together during the transition between both.
owl:equivalentClass + deprecation of sioc:User might work, I'm just wondering it the semantics of owl:equivalentClass will imply that sioc:UserAccount is also deprecated (as with an owl:sameAs) or if that's different ?
This would need to be decided asap if we want to integrate sioc:UserAccount it in Drupal 7.
I'm pretty neutral on this: I'm now used to sioc:User and kind of like its short length and simplicity, though I understand that from a semantic perspective, UserAccount is more meaningful fits better to what it represents.
Steph.
Dan Brickley
<scorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This would need to be decided asap if we want to integrate sioc:UserAccount
> it in Drupal 7.
>
> I'm pretty neutral on this: I'm now used to sioc:User and kind of like its
> short length and simplicity, though I understand that from a semantic
> perspective, UserAccount is more meaningful fits better to what it
> represents.
FWIW sioc:UserAccount gets my vote...
cheers,
Dan
Simon Reinhardt
wrote:
> This would need to be decided asap if we want to integrate sioc:UserAccount
> it in Drupal 7.
>
> I'm pretty neutral on this: I'm now used to sioc:User and kind of like its
> short length and simplicity, though I understand that from a semantic
> perspective, UserAccount is more meaningful fits better to what it
> represents.
I'm all for it but I'm not sure if we should rush to get out a new
SIOC version before the Drupal release. Maybe if we can decide on it
now Drupal can start using it and then in the next SIOC release it
gets formally defined.
Regards,
Simon
Jack Park
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sioc...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en.
>
>
Nathan
its a subclass of foaf:OnlineAccount
has properties such as sioc:account_of
is expected to be on the other side of foaf:holdsAccount
sioc:UserAccount sioc:account_of foaf:Person
makes much more sense than
sioc:User sioc:account_of foaf:Person
moreover it clears up any confusion between a User and a Person as it's
easy for people to think of Users as People, but nobody thinks of a
UserAccount as a person..
regards!
Thomas Schandl
Most people not intemately acqueainted with sioc will intuitively use
it the wrong way
cheers,
Thomas
Jack Park
Breslin, John
Hi all –
Please view the proposed changes to sioc:User at http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns2.rdf This is the proposal and has not been committed to http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns yet.
If you can spot any glaring errors, please let us know. The original file is at http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns.rdf for comparison.
I’ve also added embeds_knowledge to this file. If there are no major problems, we can commit next week.
However, the accompanying documentation will also need to be adjusted, including term specific files (e.g. http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/doc/User.en) which are used in generating the specification, and also the ontology figure will need to be changed.
Let me know what you think.
Steph, do we have a Drupal release date we need to be ready by? BTW this is an
issue that has been brought up before the Drupal RDFa effort (but this is a
good reason to do it at last); it was noted at VoCamp Galway by Peter Mika and
at various other times by others.
John.
--
Stephane Corlosquet
Attaching the diff file for easier review.
Nothing major to report, the diff looks good. Is there no machine readable way of linking the owl:DeprecatedClass sioc:User to the new sioc:UserAccount? (this is not specific to sioc:User but concerns all the deprecated terms).
The stable release of Drupal 7 won't happen before several weeks (rumors say it might be before DrupalCon, April 19th). Either way, as Simon Reinhardt said, as long as the SIOC community agrees to this change, we can get it committed to Drupal asap, even if the new release of SIOC happens a few weeks later (but preferably before the stable release of Drupal).
Steph.
Alexandre Passant
Sounds good to me as well.
Thanks also for the embeds_knowledge property that was in standby for a long time !
Just one comment, won't it be even easier to name it sioc:Account ?
The word 'user' may also be kind of ambiguous when talking about account created by companies for instance.
With regards to the link between both classes, I mentioned earlier that owl:equivalentClass might be ok, but I was wondering if that axiom consequently entails that sioc:UserAccount is also deprecated ?
Anyone ?
Alex.
On 29 Jan 2010, at 17:13, Stephane Corlosquet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attaching the diff file for easier review.
>
> Nothing major to report, the diff looks good. Is there no machine readable way of linking the owl:DeprecatedClass sioc:User to the new sioc:UserAccount? (this is not specific to sioc:User but concerns all the deprecated terms).
>
> The stable release of Drupal 7 won't happen before several weeks (rumors say it might be before DrupalCon, April 19th). Either way, as Simon Reinhardt said, as long as the SIOC community agrees to this change, we can get it committed to Drupal asap, even if the new release of SIOC happens a few weeks later (but preferably before the stable release of Drupal).
>
> Steph.
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Breslin, John <john.b...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:
> Hi all –
>
>
> Please view the proposed changes to sioc:User at http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns2.rdf This is the proposal and has not been committed to http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns yet.
>
>
> If you can spot any glaring errors, please let us know. The original file is at http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns.rdf for comparison.
>
>
> I’ve also added embeds_knowledge to this file. If there are no major problems, we can commit next week.
>
>
> However, the accompanying documentation will also need to be adjusted, including term specific files (e.g. http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/doc/User.en) which are used in generating the specification, and also the ontology figure will need to be changed.
>
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
>
> Steph, do we have a Drupal release date we need to be ready by? BTW this is an issue that has been brought up before the Drupal RDFa effort (but this is a good reason to do it at last); it was noted at VoCamp Galway by Peter Mika and at various other times by others.
>
>
> John.
>
>
> <sioc_UserAccount.diff>
--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Stephane Corlosquet
Just one comment, won't it be even easier to name it sioc:Account ?
The word 'user' may also be kind of ambiguous when talking about account created by companies for instance.
I think the transition sioc:User > sioc:UserAccount (keeping 'user' as common concept) is an easier transition than sioc:User > sioc:Account where you lose the 'user' tie between the two.
Steph.
reto
On Jan 29, 5:38 pm, Alexandre Passant <alexandre.pass...@deri.org>
wrote:
...
> With regards to the link between both classes, I mentioned earlier that owl:equivalentClass might be ok, but I was wondering if that axiom consequently entails that sioc:UserAccount is also deprecated ?
> Anyone ?
>
owl:equivalenClass only states that two classes have the same set of
member, so one can entail that a member of one class is also a member
of the other class but other properties (like description or
deprecation) only apply to one of the classes.
Cheers,
reto
> Alex.
>
> On 29 Jan 2010, at 17:13, Stephane Corlosquet wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Attaching the diff file for easier review.
>
> > Nothing major to report, the diff looks good. Is there no machine readable way of linking the owl:DeprecatedClass sioc:User to the new sioc:UserAccount? (this is not specific to sioc:User but concerns all the deprecated terms).
>
> > The stable release of Drupal 7 won't happen before several weeks (rumors say it might be before DrupalCon, April 19th). Either way, as Simon Reinhardt said, as long as the SIOC community agrees to this change, we can get it committed to Drupal asap, even if the new release of SIOC happens a few weeks later (but preferably before the stable release of Drupal).
>
> > Steph.
>
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Breslin, John <john.bres...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:
> > Hi all –
>
> > Please view the proposed changes to sioc:User athttp://rdfs.org/sioc/ns2.rdf This is the proposal and has not been committed tohttp://rdfs.org/sioc/nsyet.
>
> > If you can spot any glaring errors, please let us know. The original file is athttp://rdfs.org/sioc/ns.rdffor comparison.
>
> > I’ve also added embeds_knowledge to this file. If there are no major problems, we can commit next week.
>
> > However, the accompanying documentation will also need to be adjusted, including term specific files (e.g.http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/doc/User.en) which are used in generating the specification, and also the ontology figure will need to be changed.
>
> > Let me know what you think.
>
> > Steph, do we have a Drupal release date we need to be ready by? BTW this is an issue that has been brought up before the Drupal RDFa effort (but this is a good reason to do it at last); it was noted at VoCamp Galway by Peter Mika and at various other times by others.
>
> > John.
>
> > From: sioc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sioc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephane Corlosquet
> > Sent: 26 January 2010 22:42
> > To: sioc...@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Change sioc:User to sioc:UserAccount?
>
> > Hi,
>
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Jack Park <jackp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Recently deeply engaged in adding SIOC to my topic map platform, I
> > came to the sioc:User designation and thought it to be troublesome in
> > this sense: a userAccount is one thing, a user is another. That
> > sioc:User means someone's online account, IMHO, should be specified as
> > a userAccount; a user could be any foaf:Agent, which is not an
> > account, unless i'm missing something. What am I missing?
>
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:38 AM, John Breslin <john.bres...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:
>
> > Regarding Person vs. User - we still need to vote as to whether to
> > change User to UserAccount to clarify things. Am happy to do this if
> > others still agree.
>
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Alexandre Passant <alexandre.pass...@deri.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm finally OK with that.
> > We need to ensure that both can still live together during the transition between both.
> > owl:equivalentClass + deprecation of sioc:User might work, I'm just wondering it the semantics of owl:equivalentClass will imply that sioc:UserAccount is also deprecated (as with an owl:sameAs) or if that's different ?
>
> > This would need to be decided asap if we want to integrate sioc:UserAccount it in Drupal 7.
>
> > I'm pretty neutral on this: I'm now used to sioc:User and kind of like its short length and simplicity, though I understand that from a semantic perspective, UserAccount is more meaningful fits better to what it represents.
>
> > Steph.
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to sioc...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to sioc...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to sioc...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en.
Axel Polleres
On Feb 3, 12:46 pm, reto <m...@farewellutopia.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Jan 29, 5:38 pm, Alexandre Passant <alexandre.pass...@deri.org>
> wrote:
> ...> With regards to the link between both classes, I mentioned earlier that owl:equivalentClass might be ok, but I was wondering if that axiom consequently entails that sioc:UserAccount is also deprecated ?
> > Anyone ?
>
> owl:equivalenClass only states that two classes have the same set of
> member, so one can entail that a member of one class is also a member
> of the other class but other properties (like description or
> deprecation) only apply to one of the classes.
FWIW: +1 indeed
equivalentClass differentFrom sameAs ;-)
Axel