Representing Distributed Groups with dgFOAF

  • Felix Schwagereit
  • Ansgar Scherp
  • Steffen Staab
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6089)


Managing one’s memberships in different online communities increasingly becomes a cumbersome task. This is due to the increasing number of communities in which users participate and in which they share information with different groups of people like colleagues, sports clubs, groups with specific interests, family, friends, and others. These groups use different platforms to perform their tasks such as collaborative creation of documents, sharing of documents and media, conducting polls, and others. Thus, the groups are scattered and distributed over multiple community platforms that each require a distinct user account and management of the group. In this paper, we present d g FOAF, an approach for distributed group management based on the well known Friend-of-a-Friend (FOAF) vocabulary. Our d g FOAF approach is independent of the concrete community platforms we find today and needs no central server. It allows for defining communities across multiple systems and alleviates the community administration task. Applications of d g FOAF range from access restriction to trust support based on community membership.


Group Membership Resource Description Framework Sport Club Group Policy Identical Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Appel, A.W., Felten, E.W.: Proof-carrying authentication. In: Proceedings of ACM CCS 1999, New York, NY, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bizer, C., Cyganiak, R.: Quality-driven information filtering using the WIQA policy framework. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 7(1), 1–10 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brickley, D., Miller, L.: FOAF vocabulary specification 0.97 (2010),
  4. 4.
    Hausenblas, M., Halb, W., Raimond, Y., Heath, T.: What is the Size of the Semantic Web? In: Proceedings of I-Semantics, pp. 9–16 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jim, T.: SD3: A Trust Management System with Certified Evaluation. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Los Alamitos, CA, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li, N., Mitchell, J.C.: RT: a Role-based Trust-management framework. In: DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Preece, J.: Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. John Wiley, Chichester (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Recordon, D., Fitzpatrick, B.: Openid authentication 1.1 (May 2006),
  9. 9.
    Story, H., Harbulot, B., Jacobi, I., Jones, M.: FOAF+TLS: RESTful Authentication for the Social Web. In: SPOT 2009 Workshop at ESWC, Heraklion (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tummarello, G., Morbidoni, C., Puliti, P., Piazza, F.: Signing individual fragments of an RDF graph. In: WWW. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Uszok, A., Bradshaw, J., Jeffers, R., Suri, N., Hayes, P., Breedy, M., Bunch, L., Johnson, M., Kulkarni, S., Lott, J.: KAoS Policy and Domain Services: Toward a Description-Logic Approach to Policy Representation, Deconfliction and Enforcement. In: POLICY 2003 Workshop, Washington, DC, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yeung, C.A., Liccardi, I., Lu, K., Seneviratne, O., Berners-Lee, T.: Decentralization: The Future of Online Social Networking. In: W3C Workshop on the Future of Social Networking Position Papers, Barcelona, January 15-16 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Schwagereit
    • 1
  • Ansgar Scherp
    • 1
  • Steffen Staab
    • 1
  1. 1.WeST InstituteUniversity of Koblenz-LandauGermany

Personalised recommendations