W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > March 2011

Re: data schema / vocabulary / ontology / repositories

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:42:55 +0000
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6FBAAEA4-A3E5-453D-9859-472C96BE29F9@cyganiak.de>
To: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
Bob,

On 14 Mar 2011, at 10:47, Bob Ferris wrote:
> Am 14.03.2011 11:13, schrieb Richard Cyganiak:
>> The abandoned PhD project type of ontology or vocabulary has no community around it. Therefore, one gains very little by re-using it.
...
> I can only repeat myself: PhD-project-born ontologies have not to be bad per se, or? Banning them a priori is a rather prejudiced approach in my mind.

How did you get from

“One gains very little from re-using an abandoned PhD project ontology”

to

“Ontologies created in PhD projects should be banned”?

Best,
Richard



> When I have to choose an ontology, I try to initially review all available** ontologies independent whether they have their origin in a PhD project or design by a big industry consortium.
> Bad design decisions can be made everywhere - in the small-grouped PhD project or that one with a huge industry community behind. I think every ontology has the chance to get somehow famous, or?
> The ontology with huge stakeholder community in the background is damned to get popular and the little-sized-project-born ontology has the freedom to get accepted somewhere and somehow.
> 
> Regarding "ontology marking", I especially try to address the following issues:
> 
> - the ontology shall be discoverable, even by fuzzy requests (that is why, the tagging approach that is followed by Schemapedia is a quite good one) and by general purpose search engines alá Google
> - the ontology specification shall be provided in as much as possible and appropriated serialization formats, e.g., RDF/N3, XHTML+RDFa, RDF/JSON, RDF/XML
> - the ontology shall be published with a good (interlinked) documentation, incl. illustrating examples, graphics of its structure, related ontologies, etc. (ideally everything at least available in XHTML+RDFa)
> - the ontology shall be evolvable by a community, incl. issue trackers, mailing lists, etc.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> *) No feedback is also a kind of feedback
> **) every ontology I can find that might be somehow appropriated to fulfil my addressed purpose somehow
> 
Received on Monday, 14 March 2011 21:43:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:31 UTC