Comments on: IRC RDF logs and foaf:chatEvent

By: Alexandre Passant

Alexandre Passant — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:53:30 +0000

We had a similar discussion on the SIOC-Dev list some time ago, but didn’t produce anything.
It seems that’s time again to look at existing vocabularies and see how SIOC can be used for this kind of community-based events.

http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev/browse_thread/thread/0647634c1dce3d4b

By: johnbreslin

johnbreslin — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:42:19 +0000

Hi Dan – my opinion would be to do one of these:

(1) Don’t add them to FOAF core, but rather to a module (if you like that kind of thing)…

(2) Use SIOC core terms, as tukkah does for IRC channels #swig, #sioc, etc. here – http://tuukka.iki.fi/tmp/logindex

(3) See if there are SIOC types terms (ChatChannel, InstantMessage) that work – http://rdfs.org/sioc/types

Would be good to discuss with Tukkah, Richard and others if you make it here next week…

By: Morten Høybye Frederiksen

Morten Høybye Frederiksen — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:57:33 +0000

I run a simple log-watcher that currently depends on the payload being in dc:description, but it wouldn’t be hard updating it to use a new property.

By: danbri

danbri — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:05:20 +0000

Given that we have Jabber/XMPP support, weblog discussion, msnChatId and group-definition mechanisms in FOAF, I would disagree that it’s out of scope; the ChatChannel class in particular. I’m also quite happy for it to go into SIOC. Proper lossless logging of group chat across IRC and XMPP would be a great project for someone to pick up btw, and perhaps with RDFa now we could have a single logs page instead of HTML + RDF in separate files.

SIOC people, care to discuss this at your F2F? (which I may attempt to gatecrash…)

By: Simon Reinhardt

Simon Reinhardt — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:42:28 +0000

Hmph it did. :)
Look at http://bloody-byte.net/filez/swig.rdf

By: Simon Reinhardt

Simon Reinhardt — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:36:18 +0000

I agree, I wouldn’t add some terms to FOAF which don’t really relate to it just because some old data has it. SIOC is perfectly fine for it and a change wouldn’t be that complicated. Any change you do to the terms will result in completely unrelated URIs anyway so for processors it’s a whole new thing.

In SIOC and using some other new terms it would be (hope it doesn’t strip the XML):

2008-04-03T00:05:11Z
danbri: do you know of good scutter data for playing with codepiction? would be fun to get back into that (esp. parallelization).

By: Richard Cyganiak

Richard Cyganiak — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:00:37 +0000

Chatlog vocabulary in FOAF? This is news to me, and I don’t think I like it. To me, the core of FOAF is personal online profiles. Don’t dilute the FOAF spec just because there’s a pile of legacy data. My €0.02: Fix the class name and forget about it until someone converts all this stuff to SIOC.