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

RE: Reuse

From: Michael Hopwood <michael@editeur.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:20:42 +0100
To: Michael Hopwood <michael@editeur.org>, 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: <F61A8945B05715448AF2221FB6080925072A72C71E@EX27MAIL03.msghub.com>
It has to be said, as well, that commercial semantic reasoning doesn't tend to use the "lightweight" approach of RDF and OWL for serious applications:

http://www.rightscom.com/Portals/0/Formal_Ontology_for_Media_Rights_Transactions.pdf

-m

From: Michael Hopwood [mailto:michael@editeur.org]
Sent: 21 June 2012 11:01
To: Juan Sequeda; Barry Norton
Cc: Denny Vrandecic; public-lod@w3.org
Subject: RE: Reuse

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 10:21:35 UTC

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