W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > May 2008

RE: Biological Taxonomy Vocabulary 0.1

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 08:18:47 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D298520166404C@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Toby A Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>


IMHO this is a great way of doing it. Other examples basically using the
same approach (vocabulary spec in RDFa) are:

http://creativecommons.org/ns  - Describing Copyright in RDF

http://purl.org/NET/scovo  - The Statistical Core Vocabulary (scovo)


 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
>Toby A Inkster
>Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:00 AM
>To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org; Semantic Web
>Subject: Biological Taxonomy Vocabulary 0.1
>Unable to find a vocabulary that was satisfactory for my needs, I've  
>put together a simple vocabulary for biological taxonomy. The idea is  
>to make it powerful enough to cover 80% of use cases, but still  
>simple for most non-expert biologists to use.
>Namespace and spec is:
>	http://purl.org/NET/biol/0.1/
>I'm posting this to the RDFa mailing list as I thought they might be  
>interested in it - the spec uses RDFa to provide a full RDF schema  
>for the namespace. (There is a rel=alternate link to an RDF/XML  
>version; and content negotiation serves up the RDF/XML version to  
>agents that specifically request it.)
>I'm also posting this to the semantic web mailing list because I'd  
>like some feedback on it. It's my first schema, so I'd like to know  
>if I've made any obvious mistakes. Any design anti-patterns that I've  
>triggered. I imagine that including the version number in the  
>namespace URI might count as one, but I should mention that I plan on  
>keeping the same namespace URI for subsequent versions of the spec,  
>provided that they don't introduce changes which directly contradict  
>the initial specification. (e.g. introducing new terms and  
>deprecating old ones should be safe to keep the namespace URI; but if  
>I actually remove terms or radically change their meanings, then I'd  
>move to the /0.2/ URI.)
>What do people think?
>Toby A Inkster
Received on Friday, 9 May 2008 06:22:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:27 UTC