W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2009

Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

From: Ross Singer <rossfsinger@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:25:11 -0500
Message-ID: <23b83f160911121925y6c2ed57bnfa371eca3079618@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com> wrote:

> Finally, as a personal note, I have to say that I find the gratuitously
> snide and superior tone of Richard and Ross's comments off-putting. If there
> are questions as to why some of us don't engage more on these forums, look
> only to the unprofessional aspects of some of the participants and their
> dialog.

Hmm.  If I came across as snide and superior, I sincerely apologize:
I put forward umbel as a legitimate solution to the original problem.
I explained how I thought it would be used.  I commiserated that the
documentation does not lead one to easily understand the problem that
UMBEL is trying to solve:  there is a lot of tension (as well as a lot
of prose) on the UMBEL site between it's relationship to opencyc and
it's role as a vocabulary to bridge concepts and things.

I am also trying to use it to link Library of Congress subject
headings to dbpedia and whatnot, so obviously I feel it's a valuable

I definitely understand the amount of energy and time goes into
developing a vocabulary like this and that the hairnet over the
basketball crack was probably a low blow.  Sorry about that.  It's a
funny image.

Still, it didn't help me wrap my head around UMBEL much.

Received on Friday, 13 November 2009 03:25:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:12 UTC