- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:12:58 +0000
- To: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, Mischa Tuffield <mmt04r@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Oh dear, here I go. I have never understood why, at the publishing level, the elements of vocabularies, RDFS, OWL, are any different from any other URIs we might use. Surely what is good for a URI about Mischa (html, 303, RDF, etc,) is also good for the predicates that are attached to it? On 20/08/2010 14:38, "Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Mischa Tuffield <mmt04r@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > wrote: >> There are some best practises to writing and and publishing RDF vocabs. You >> can find them on the W3C site : >> >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/ So why can't this page be much shorter, referring to the LD stuff for most of it, and any extra where necessary? Simplifies the maintenance problem, as well. Or maybe I have missed something. <<Ducks>> > > The final version of that doc might have a bit more polish [1]. > > I'm kind of a fan of using RDFa to publish vocabularies, since it is > incredibly lightweight (you can just publish a static HTML document). > For example, we felt like we needed to create a few pieces of > vocabulary for the National Digital Newspaper Program, so we simply > published an HTML document as part of the web application [2]. > > If you need something to manage the namespace I'd take a look at > Neologism [3]. The openvocab [4] solution is also requires very little > on your part. > > //Ed > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/ > [2] http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/terms/ > [3] http://neologism.deri.ie/ > [4] http://open.vocab.org/ >
Received on Monday, 23 August 2010 03:14:01 UTC