W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > November 2010

Re: AW: SemWeb terminology page

From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:21:29 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=hGrdGN-ebbaBWvHbKhUyiTs5Yxi2T+n9uo0MR@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
I guess it gets back to what we are trying to do with this Semantic
Web Terminology Page [1]. If it really is a list of useful Semantic
Web and Linked Data terminology then assuming RDF doesn't seem like a

If the page is going to also include library terminology, and try to
relate library terminology to semantic web terminology I think we are
doing something different...and more difficult.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Semantic_Web_terminology

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> Well, it does avoid some hassles, but in fact it does not answer anymore the
> initial need, which was to find a label for:
> 1. things like FOAF, FRAD and other "metadata schemas"
> 2. things like AAT, LCSH, VIAF and other "value sets"/"vocabulary encoding
> schemes" (to take DC abstrac model terminology)
> For the first RDF vocabulary would be ok, except that they're not always in
> RDF (yet). Or would that idea for that category be "stuff that would be
> represented as RDF vocabularies"? It's alright with me, since we're a linked
> data-oriented group so can afford quite a biased view on the world ;-)
> For the second dataset indeed applies to them, but it is perhaps a bit too
> broad. RDF conversion of bibliographic catalogs would also be datasets. What
> we wanted to address was this set of reference values to be used for other
> datasets. Perhaps on linked data this distinction does not operate anymore,
> from a technical perspective. But it becomes difficult to explain to non-LD
> people then if we lose all anchoring to their world.
> Perhaps we should keep using a less elegant but quite explicit "authorities
> and KOS resources" as in the topic list [1]--I'd prefer "KOS" as a general
> umbrella, but I guess it can be confusing to others...
> Antoine
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Topics#CM._Conceptual_Models_and_KOS
>> +1 - seems to avoid some hassles mentioned earlier.
>> Cheers, Joachim
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] Im
>> Auftrag von Ed Summers
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. November 2010 22:51
>> An: public-lld
>> Betreff: Re: SemWeb terminology page
>> Personally, I like the term "RDF Vocabulary" to talk about RDF schemas
>> and OWL ontologies like FOAF, SKOS, DCTERMS, etc.
>> I tend to use "Dataset" from VoID [1] to refer to a bounded collection
>> of web resources e.g. id.loc.gov/authorities, viaf.org, etc.
>> I think one of the lessons from the DCAM is that we should limit the
>> amount of vocabulary we ourselves have to create to talk about things.
>> But that doesn't make for very lengthy dissertations though I guess
>> :-)
>> //Ed
>> [1] http://vocab.deri.ie/void/guide
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 11:21:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:41 UTC