- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:36:44 +0100
- To: janowicz@ucsb.edu, Sven Schade <sven.schade@jrc.ec.europa.eu>, public-locadd@w3.org
- CC: 'Pascal Hitzler' <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>
Hello > Yes, I absolutely agree but frankly speaking that was my starting point. > What we are seeing right now is that the Linked Data cloud is falling > apart. IMHO, one of the reasons is that we need to approach it a bit > more scientifically. I guess we all known about the dynamics in the SW > community that started the LD also as a reaction to over-engineering > things but now we are running into the opposite problem, namely just > hacking things together and this really makes me a bit nervous. The latest vocabularies edited within W3C groups (CG or WG), which is what we are talking about here, have all been very carefully thought and this discussion we are having, has also already been held. So just let's not forget the numerous discussions that already took place. Many of the examples you're showing are due to poor vocab usage by some people, this does not mean re-using vocabulary is a bad thing, again, when this is relevant. See the latest vocabularies such as OA Open Annotation, (http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#) which carefully re-use other vocab when necessary. >> Let's go back to the original problem of this >>> thread: geographical identifier. > > I agree and please do not read my email as a criticism, attack, or > whatever but as a discussion starter of what we really want to develop > and how. +1 Raphaël P.S: I enjoyed reading http://stko.geog.ucsb.edu/location_linked_data -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech Multimedia Communications Department 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Saturday, 11 January 2014 18:37:14 UTC