FIS1311 Review Assignment
In this particular article, Brian Kelly goes into great detail about the FOAF (Friend of a Friend) project. He addresses many issues regarding the project, some for and some against. It is the purpose of this essay to review and respond to Kelly’s article. It shall be contextualized, criticized, and supported based on published resources and my own personal experiences.
In order to properly review and respond to this article, we must first and foremost explain the FOAF project. It is a project aimed at promoting social networks by means of pre-existing relationships. This is done by the creation of a script which gathers consolidates personal information from a user. The user enters all of their information (using a script editor, such as FOAF-a-matic). A file is generated and the user posts it to their personal web page. The file is available to be downloaded by viewers; a separate program is required to view the file (Brickley, 2003b). These basic steps are essential for the core purpose of FOAF: social networking. One of the core fields of the FOAF script generator is the “contacts” field – who you know. If I were to generate a FOAF script, I would include my contacts, A, B, and C. Then, if I met D and D knew about FOAF, D could be introduced to A, B, and C through me. This is the core directive of FOAF, as the name suggests. It is a means of introducing people via extended, pre-existing relationships (Brickley, 2003a). Also, the fact that the FOAF script is standardized means that the files could be processed automatically for creating larger networks.
Kelly’s article is broken down into several sections:
- What is FOAF?
- Case study: FOAF and conferences
- Advantages
- Issues
- Creating FOAF
- Viewing FOAF
In the first section, he defines FOAF from a technical aspect (whereas the above description is more functional than technical). The FOAF project is rooted in the SemanticWeb project, whose core tenet is the creation of a uniform language with metadata capabilities (as opposed to HTML, a strictly linear, “visual” language) (Semantic Web, 2005). The case study subsection deals with the potential that FOAF has for organizing and facilitating meetings among conference members; participants at a conference are asked to fill out a FOAF script for the purpose of enabling additional meetings. Kelly notes that this was not particularly successful, and he attributes it to “reluctance to provide such information for every conference, the lack of ownership of the data once it has been uploaded, with the inevitable consequence that it becomes out of date. In addition each conference is likely to have its own application which can require additional learning time.” Under advantages, Kelly notes that its main point of note is ease of use. It is very easy to generate a basic FOAF script (I can vouch for this through my own experience – the FOAF template provided at the FOAF project home page is phenomenally simple to use) and these FOAF files are fully transferable to anybody with a FOAF script viewers, without issue. Regarding issues, Kelly indicates a number of concerns which are addressed as follows:
1. Trust: as it is with conventional web pages, we must rely on human honesty for accurate information
2. Data protection: an ideal purpose of FOAF is to have the data stored centrally for easier access, yet Kelly notes that “As with any system which stores personal data, organisations need to consider carefully the implications of data protection legislation.”
3. Limitations of a “FOAF” relationship: users (such as the aforementioned conference participants) may be wary of the effectiveness of an extended social network
4. Uncertainty over the term “friend”: one criticism of FOAF is their lack of clarity of the term “friend.” The FOAF template provides a basic mechanism for differentiating between types of friends, but critics say it is not yet developed enough.
5. Harvesting data: FOAF scripts are batch-processed when viewed with a FOAF viewer and they are not processed dynamically, so there are limitations in file creation and updating. Kelly notes that this is currently being addressed by members of the FOAF community.
6. Namespace agreement: “Although FOAF is extensible it is desirable to seek agreements on the XML namespaces which define the extensions.” Given that this is part of the SemanticWeb project, standardization is necessary.
7. Application support for data extensions: currently FOAF viewers will not support every graphical display, i.e. personal profile pictures.
In the creating and viewing FOAF sections, Kelly provides a simple how-to guide for creating a FOAF script. He describes the template used to create the script and the process in which one updates their script later, and the ease of use of two of the FOAF viewers (FOAF Explorer and Plink) (Kelly, 2004a).
When reading the article, it is very clear that the author is not addressing FOAF from an objective standpoint; criticisms are dealt with an extremely apologetic attitude and any chance that the author has to laud the project, he does. From an academic standpoint, this is perhaps less desirable than an objective view, however it should not be discounted completely. It is indeed true that FOAF is not without its faults; I have personally registered for this project. The problem, at this point, is not with the technical faults but rather with general ignorance of the project. Were more users to sign up for it, its ideal effectiveness would most certainly be realized. This article serves as almost an advertisement for the project. Now that this has been determined, it is extremely easy to place this article in context: a “review” from a biased source, attempting to pass himself off as unbiased. Perhaps the biggest flaw is the fact that the author fails to mention the FOAF project’s biggest (and more established) rival, Friendster (Hammersley, 2003). Friendster is another social networking project which is significantly more well-known among the general population (Kahney, 2003). It requires little technical knowledge and entails little more than creating a template-based web page. The fact that the author chose not to include this in his article demonstrates quite clearly his intentions with the article.
One cannot fault the author for having a bias. Obviously he sees the benefits of FOAF and is willing to extol them, as he as done in another related article (Kelly, 2004b). That said, it is difficult to take this article for much more than an advertisement if the author is willing to simply brush off criticism the way Kelly did. I feel that the article does clarify any misconceptions one might have had about the project (or if one knew nothing, it serves as a good introduction). The required programs are explained well and Kelly adequately explains the project’s ease of use. That said, it can improve on its addressing of the criticisms of the project and inclusion of comparable projects such as the aforementioned Friendster.
Works Cited
Brickley, D. (2003a). A purpose of FOAF. Retrieved
http://rdfweb.org/mt/foaflog/archives/000025.html
Brickley, D. (2003b). The FOAF FAQ. Retrieved
Hammersley, B. (2003). Click to the Clique. Retrieved
Kahney, L. (2003). Making Friendsters in high places. Retrieved
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,59650,00.html
