Re: [foaf-dev] works relation
>>>>> from this if you wouldLikeToKnow someone, then you know them.
>>>>> Which is nonsensical. So I wouldLikeToKnow SamanthaFox, therefore I know her!
Nah. It perfectly sensible. People are more subtle than any formal logic. (For most of the world's male
foaf-dev readers, Sam Fox was a titty bar sensation, who worked the media to make herself rich and famous).
I remember meeting the brothers of my first girlfriend (the cutest brownskinned 18year old English Moslem
girl on the entire planet, ex Burma). As schoolboys, they looked at me (age about 15 and 17) asking: so do you
know our sister (in the biblical sense of "knows")? The answer was actually no, but given their sister's
overt lustiness, that would have been hard to believe of any normal male.
As brothers from a good family trying properly to decide it they'd want me long term in their family circle
(assuming I'd demonstrated respect for their sister and therefore any other female person), they did
what any slightly conservative family member would do, when qualifying "knows". It came totally
naturally to me then and nowto apply such _parochial_ qualifiers to "knows". It was a matter of trust formation.
Speaking as a programmer it makes total sense to reuse knows, when one sets up a "provisional" "would like
to" know. I definitely wanted to know that girl (we were ages 17 and 18 respectively). At the outset I could
not have put here on the actual knows list (even 20 years ago, before the era of social networks). An
immature male, Id have wanted to send 2 signals: (a) I want to get the point where we are both comfy using that
label (the "so you publicly have a boyfriend, and I'm it!" moment), and (b) meantime, I'd want to qualify
that we are not there yet.
The point about trust is that is always transcends the public/private line that delineates the worlds of
public and private. Trust is not the same as the rigid compartmentalization of authorization schemes.
It's the rules that allow the breaking of the rules (RTHATBR), as the private and public space interact to
meet both the needs of society AND (a couple of) individuals.
-----Original Message-----
From: foaf-dev-bounces@...
(Continue reading)
Don't get me wrong. I like the names of all those relations, but until they are a bit surer they should remove
any of the relations that have entailment consequences. But they seem completely unresponsive to
feedback, as far as I can see... So they should be avoided.
Henry
RSS Feed