W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2012

RE: Reuse

From: Michael Hopwood <michael@editeur.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:00:43 +0100
To: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>
CC: Denny Vrandecic <vrandecic@googlemail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F61A8945B05715448AF2221FB6080925072A72C6EA@EX27MAIL03.msghub.com>
Diverse vocabulary standards I think are neither especially "good" or "bad" in this sense, they are basically just a natural consequence of the fact that:

To describe a set of "stuff" in a given "context" you need a(nother) specific vocabulary - this is just the way that structured, formal language works. See:

http://www.erpanet.org/events/2004/cork/presentations/040617PaskinPIConcepts.pdf - especially final 10 slides on the contextual ontology model.

There is actually an existing service (not called FooBar, sadly) that does precisely this kind of thing:

http://www.doi.org/VMF/documents/VocabularyMappingFrameworkIntroductionV1.0%28091212%29.pdf

It would be great to hear some feedback on it from the LOD communit(y/ies).

Cheers,

Michael
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 10:01:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:40 UTC