Hi. Le samedi 04 septembre 2010 à 12:26 -0400, Samuel Padgett a écrit : > Hi, Scott. Appendix A says this, > > >> "There is an additional constraint for foaf:Person. Implementations > MUST specify either a non-empty foaf:name value or both a non-empty > foaf:givenName and foaf:familyName values." [1] > > A lot of providers don't require a real name when creating user IDs. > ClearQuest is one example. I'm not sure how to handle this case as it's a > MUST per the spec. > > Also I share Ian's concern that this is potentially sensitive information. >
I'm not sure such requirements are problematic, since the name might as well just be set to "unknown" or "(not provided)" or "(masked)" or whatever ... I think it's great for potential interoperability with LOD [0] to use widely used ontologies like FOAF to describe persons, but no one says that its properties may be authoritative in any way, right ? Just my 2 cents, [0] http://linkeddata.org/ -- Olivier BERGER <[email protected]> http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)
