- From: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:43:34 +0100
- To: "Haffner, Alexander" <A.Haffner@d-nb.de>
- Cc: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
tis 2010-11-02 klockan 15:33 +0100 skrev Haffner, Alexander: > Hi Mark, > > Good point! > > > About terminology: > > > > I understand that FOAF, FRAD, ... are called "vocabularies" by this > > group (although I would term them "schemas" or "metadata schemas"). > > I like also the RDA, FRBRer etc. terminology "element sets" > > > But what are AAT, LCSH, ... called, if not "vocabularies" (at least I > > hope a separate term is reserved for terminological resources). > > Here I prefer the term "value vocabularies" because they usually act as > values for "elements" In my thesis, I use the terms "element vocabulary" and "value vocabulary" to describe the two kinds. The notions are in my experience relatively useful even outside the RDF world. /Mikael
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 14:44:11 UTC