OpenSocial’s API reference describes a number of classes (‘Person’, ‘Name’, ‘Email’, ‘Phone’, ‘Url’, ‘Organization’, ‘Address’, ‘Message’, ‘Activity’, ‘MediaItem’, ‘Activity’, …), each of which has various properties whose values are either strings, references to instances of other classes, or enumerations. I’d like to make them usable beyond the confines of OpenSocial, so I’m making an RDF/OWL version. OpenSocial’s schema is an attempt to provide an overarching model for much of present-day mainstream ‘social networking’ functionality, including dating, jobs etc. Such a broad effort is inevitably somewhat open-ended, and so may benefit from being linked to data from other complementary sources.
So – my RDF version. At the moment it is merely a list of classes and their properties (expressed using via rdfs:domain), written using RDFa/HTML. I don’t yet define rdfs:range for any of these, nor handle the enumerated values (opensocial.Enum.Smoker, opensocial.Enum.Drinker, opensocial.Enum.Gender, opensocial.Enum.LookingFor, opensocial.Enum.Presence) that are defined in enum.js.
The code in schemarama.js will simply generate an RDFA/XHTML page describing the schema. This can be checked using the W3C validator, or converted to RDF/XML with the pyRDFa service at W3C.
I’ve tested the output using the OwlSight/pellet service from Clark & Parsia, and with Protege 4. It’s basic but seems OK and a foundation to build from. Here’s a screenshot of the output loaded into Protege (which btw finds 10 classes and 99 properties).
OK so why might this be interesting?
- Using OpenSocial-derrived vocabulary, OpenSocial-exported data in other contexts
- databases (queryable via SPARQL)
- mixed with FOAF
- mixed with Microformats
- published directly in RDFa/HTML
- Mapping OpenSocial terms with other contact and social network schemas
This suggests some goals for continued exploration:
It should be possible to use “OpenSocial markup” in an ordinary homepage or blog (HTML or XHTML), drawing on any of the descriptive concepts they define, through using RDFa’s markup notation. As Mark Birbeck pointed out recently, RDFa is an empty vessel – it does not define any descriptive vocabulary. Instead, the RDF toolset offers an environment in which vocabulary from multiple independent sources can be mixed and merged quite freely. The hard work of the OpenSocial team in analysing social network schemas and finding commonalities, or of the Microformats scene in defining simple building-block vocabularies … these can hopefully be combined within a single environment.