Gavin's very uncreative blog for FIS1311

FIS1311 Review Assignment

2005-11-14T09:24:00.000-08:00

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 October 2, 2005 from
http://rdfweb.org/mt/foaflog/archives/000025.html

Brickley, D. (2003b). The FOAF FAQ. Retrieved October 2, 2005, from http://rdfweb.org/topic/FAQ

Hammersley, B. (2003). Click to the Clique. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,870848,00.html

Kahney, L. (2003). Making Friendsters in high places. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,59650,00.html

Kelly, B. (2004a). FOAF: Using open standards to support community building. ARIADNE, Vol 39, Retrieved September 30, 2005, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue39/web-focus/

Kelly, B. (2004b). Using FOAF to support community building. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/iadis-2004/foaf/html/

Semantic Web. (2005). Retrieved November 10^th, 2005, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_web.

I would like an explanation, please.

2005-11-13T21:15:00.001-08:00

Dear world:

Some time on Saturday morning, I was in bed. I rolled over and in the process, cranked my head on the corner of my bedside table. I was instantly knocked out and I fell off my bed. I woke up half an hour later with a killer headache, utterly confused and wondering if I'd been violated.

Unfortunately, I didn't get a concussion, so I don't have anything to brag about to women in order to garner sympathy. In fact, the only thing I could take away from this experiencewas the knowledge that I have to move my bedside table a few feet away from my bed.

This was the stupidest thing that happened to me this weekend. In conclusion, ouch.

-Gavin

I would like an explanation, please.

2005-11-13T21:15:00.000-08:00

FIS 1311 Project Profile assignment

2005-10-03T07:01:00.000-07:00

Friend of a Friend

The “Friend of a Friend” project, at http://www.foaf-project.org/, is indeed an interesting venture, part of the greater SemanticWeb project. Generally, the SemanticWeb project is rooted in the idea that computers can only understand a certain language and that we as users are forced to communicate with computers in that language. If you have a web page, it is displayed in HTML format – a straightforward, relatively simple language similar to a word processing document, but it is limited in that it can only display content in a linear format. The Wikipedia entry by Christopher Schmidt (2005) roughly explains the SemanticWeb project as follows:

For example, with HTML and a tool to render it (perhaps Web browser software, perhaps another user agent), one can create and present a page that lists items for sale. The HTML of this catalog page can make simple, document-level assertions such as "this document's title is 'Widget Superstore'". But there is no capability within the HTML itself to unambiguously assert that, say, item number X586172 is an Acme Gizmo with a retail price of €199, or that it is a consumer product. Rather, HTML can only say that the span of text "X586172" is something that should be positioned near "Acme Gizmo" and "€199", etc. There is no way to say "this is a catalog" or even to establish that "Acme Gizmo" is a kind of title or that "€199" is a price. There is also no way to express that these pieces of information are bound together in describing a discrete item, distinct from other items perhaps listed on the page.

The Semantic Web addresses this shortcoming, using the descriptive technologies RDF and OWL, and the data-centric, customizable markup language XML. These technologies are combined in order to provide descriptions that supplement or replace the content of Web documents. Thus, content may manifest as descriptive data stored in Web-accessible databases, or as markup within documents (particularly, in XHTML interspersed with XML, or, more often, purely in XML, with layout/rendering cues stored separately). The machine-readable descriptions allow content managers to add meaning to the content, thereby facilitating automated information gathering and research by computers.

Whereas the SemanticWeb project has a broad scope, Friend of a Friend is much more specific and is aimed at the average, everyday user. It is designed to consolidate information and describe people and their relationships in a language that a computer can understand – a catalogue, of sorts, or metadata. It is a piece of software that was inspired by the idea that we are all connected, “à la Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” (Boese, 2003, para. 3), or that if we were friends, you could meet my other friends because they know me. It is part of the “Social Internet” which includes sites like Friendster, Ryze and Ecadamy (Hammersley, 2003). Friend of a Friend, founded by Libby Miller and Dan Brickley has created a form which contains fields of the most common personal information – name, phone number, email address, a picture, etc (“FOAF Software”, 2005). When all of the desired fields are filled, the form is submitted through an RDF generator and produces a script, quite similar in style to XML. The user must save the script as a .RDF file which is then posted to their website. When the file is downloaded, it is viewed with one of the FOAF script viewers such as FOAFNAUT, Semaview, Plink or FOAF Explorer, and it produces a standard page with all the information displayed (Kelly, 2004b). The project is very handy because it consolidates the common information people would be willing to share about themselves. Instead of forcing viewers to hunt for the information, it is now made readily available in a standardized template, very much like a “digital business card” and is available for automated processing (Kelly, 2004a).

What appears to be the biggest drawback of this program is that it requires that the user be cognizant of the program itself and that the user be willing to participate as opposed to simply writing the personal information they wish to share on their web page. Essentially, what is the user’s motivation to create a “FOAF” script? Unless the user has a vested interest in the program, are they likely to bother finding out about it? As an average computer user, I myself was not aware of the SemanticWeb project (and by extension, the FOAF project) before this class, and thus there is a distinct possibility that (assuming its publicity remains at the current level) I would never have heard of it. Ergo, how could I take part in a project which I did not even know exist? The developers take time to attempt to rebuke a comment made in a 2003 article in Wired magazine (Kahney, 2003, p.2). The writer claims that one must indeed be somewhat technically proficient in order to benefit from FOAF, an opinion shared by Ben Hammersley (2003, para. 24), whereas the developers choose to disagree. This is an interesting statement, but I find I must disagree with the developers. Personally, I found the FOAF project to be a fantastic idea on paper, but perhaps not as practical/efficient when put into practice. It makes the assumption that people are motivated enough to go out and learn about it and that they won’t mind spending extra time to create this FOAF script. It is still bounded by the limits of internet social networking in that it can only survive with active participation from the users (Hammersley, 2003, para. 15).

The project initially started out as a means of posting information about oneself in a standard readable form, though it appears as though the scope has broadened over time. The unofficial purpose of the FOAF project is “to engineer more coincidences in the world” (Brickley, 2003a, para. 1) and the developers themselves have insinuated that one possible further objective is to create a matchmaking/dating service using the FOAF database (Brickley, 2003b, para. 3). The program would match similar interests/locations and present them to a hopeful user (Dumbill, 2002, para. 3). This is very similar to any other online dating service, however it simply uses the data obtained from a user’s FOAF entry, whereas an online dating service is created specifically for that purpose and uses its own database, also created specifically for that purpose. To the more technically advanced, this will make a more user-friendly environment as all of the information is consolidated and standardized. Perhaps less personal than a biographical blog, but on paper, it is much more organized. Of course, “matchmaking” applications are but one facet of community building. Brian Kelly (2004a) explains that with minimal coaxing, the FOAF project could be used to build networks of contacts within the employment sector as well,

The realm of possibilities for FOAF is enormous and one can only hope that the hurdle of active participation will not be seen as prohibitive. For those with some technical knowledge, it is indeed quite simple.

Works Cited

Brickley, D. (2003a). A purpose of FOAF. Retrieved October 2, 2005 from
http://rdfweb.org/mt/foaflog/archives/000025.html

Brickley, D. (2003b). The FOAF FAQ. Retrieved October 2, 2005, from http://rdfweb.org/topic/FAQ

Boese, C. (2003). You’ve got a friend…of a friend…of a friend…. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/12/05/hln.hot.buzz.foaf.networks/

Dumbill, E. (2002). XML Watch: Finding friends with RDF and XML. Retrieved September 30, 2005, from http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-foaf.html

Hammersley, B. (2003). Click to the Clique. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,870848,00.html

Kahney, L. (2003). Making Friendsters in high places. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,59650,00.html

Kelly, B. (2004a). FOAF: Using open standards to support community building. ARIADNE, Vol 39, Retrieved September 30, 2005, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue39/web-focus/

Kelly, B. (2004b). Using FOAF to support community building. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/iadis-2004/foaf/html/

Schmidt, C. (2005). SemanticWeb – ESW Wiki. Retrieved September 30, 2005, from http://esw.w3.org/topic/SemanticWeb

FOAF (Software). (2005). Retrieved October 2, 2005, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_%28software%29

Welcome to the Taj Mahal of blogs

2005-09-25T12:06:00.000-07:00

Well, this is it.

You have finally reached the ultimate blog. You are the Indiana Jones of web-surfing and I am the Holy Grail of web sites.

Alas no, welcome to the mediocre world of Gavin. I had always avoided making a blog because I figured that nobody would be THAT interested in reading what I have to say. Really, I'm not that interesting. I'm just your average, everyday snappy-dressing library studies student with aspirations of having George Lucas make a movie about my life.

I should say, for the record, that the purpose of this blog is to discuss all that is good and bad with FIS1311. Readings, assignments, executions, the whole nine yards, shall be displayed to you in glorious HTML.

Off the record, everything shy of hardcore pornography is A-game material on this page. Got an opinion about the latest bomb in the box office? You better believe I want to hear it. Want to tell me to stop stealing your newspaper every morning, Mrs. Wentworth? Well, you can do that too, but I'm going to keep on taking it. Come on, it's the Herald, that's like $3.50 a day and I'm just flat-out poor. Bottom line, anything and everything is welcome here, comments and suggestions and whatnot. Hit me, in the figurative blackjack sense!

-Gavin