Jump to content

Talk:FOAF

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:FOAF (ontology))

Concept

[edit]

there is also a concept out there of LOAF. I don't even know the acronym expansion--like list of all friends or something. I came here looking for it. It would be nice if someone that knew what that meant could list it here and link it to a stub. mike 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technicall

[edit]

Wow. Didn't understand a word of this article. This is where Wikipedia stops being an encyclopedia and becomes a technical handbook. Patrick Neylan 10:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merit

[edit]

No, I don't think this has technical merit. This article is useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.162.143 (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those doing research in Semantic Web, Social Networks (especially Decentralized Online Social Networks) this content is quite useful. FOAF is arguably one of the more practical ideas born from Semantic Web. I got here after I read Tim Berners Lee's recent paper on Decentralized OSNs and I think this page deserves a note on Wikipedia. The general quality of the article could certainly improve though. Rrahimi —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Notability

[edit]

I just removed the notability warning on the article. I agree there are problems with it, but notability isn't one of them. You may not have noticed that it was nominated for deletion once before, and was kept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FOAF_(software) Nloth (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I just removed the notability warning again. Being the major part of the Semantic Web concept, and having mentioned the LiveJournal implementation and the Tim Berners-Lee essay (that leaded to the Speedy Keep/nom withdrawn in the AfD long ago in 2007) is sufficient enough for notability, though in a minute I'll add the references to a lot of other services utilizing the FOAF system. Honeyman (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shrugs. Add some references from independant reliable sources and it won't have that problem, will it? Artw (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what's going on. Tidied up the essay reference, removed the tag. Artw (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a reference to this article from the Frame language article --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Describing Trust

[edit]

the statement "it does not require the dedicated key signing parties such as Certificate authority to perform the user authorization," is nonsensical as "certificate authority" is not a kind of key signing party. a certificate authority (CA) is an entity in a PKI who is responsible for evaluating the identity of an end entity and digitally signing that entity's public key. also, CA's do not perform authorization on behalf of the user, but rather give the user credentials other people may use to authenticate them. i think what we were going for here was something more like, "it does not require key signing parties or the use of a certification authority to establish trust."

just sayin'

(OhMeadhbh) 12:36, 2 August 2010 (PDT)


[edit]

The links 6 and 8 are not working (Links tu SUN) 85.216.71.95 (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this named "FOAF (software)"?

[edit]

FOAF is not software, it is an ontology or a controlled vocabulary. I would like to move this to "FOAF (ontology)". Any objections? Klortho (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done That seems highly reasonable. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Klortho (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with IBM Developer site?

[edit]

I just tried looking at the first two references for this article, which I think is quite good btw, and they both went to an IBM Developerworks site that was down for maintenance. I waited a while and tried again and still down. Perhaps those links need updating. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on FOAF (ontology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FOAF (ontology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FOAF (ontology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

[edit]

@DrVogel The phrase "Friend of a friend" and its abbreviation "FOAF" has many other applications like Friend of a friend in sociology. So disambiguation is necessary and parenthesis "(ontology)" should be mentioned in its title. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to @DrVogel: I have reverted the pageswap as requested by @Hooman Mallahzadeh.
@Pppery and @Hooman Mallahzadeh: do discuss, with a move discussion if need be, and arrive at a consensus if the article should be moved as initially requested by @Pppery. – robertsky (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 August 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FOAF (ontology) → FOAF – Disambiguation not necessary since FOAF has redirected to the ontology page since 2014. One of the following must be true:

  1. The ontology is the primary topic for the term "FOAF" and should be at the base name.
  2. The ontology is not the primary topic for the term "FOAF" and FOAF should be retargeted to either Friend of a Friend or Friend of a friend.

This requested move will decide which of those scenarios bears out. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery No, in my opinion, it is not primary topic, instead its sociology application is primary topic.
Both of them are occupied. In my opinion the correct topic is "FOAF (ontology)" and no change is required. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery In my opinion the title of "FOAF" is too much ambiguous for this article. It is not good! Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I haven't seen any sources suggesting that "FOAF" is a commonly used acronym in sociology. Google Books also suggests strongly that the ontology is the primary topic; even when searching "foaf -ontology -file", the first five pages of Google Books results pertained entirely to the computer science term FOAF. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very specialized meaning of 'ontology' is a bad disambiguator. Srnec (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FOAF&oldid=1202066042"