W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > February 2007

Re: data format for gathered information

From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:24:06 +0100
To: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Cc: W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PM-GA.20070226112406.4BEC5.1.1D@192.168.27.2>

On 22.02.2007 19:55:52, Leo Sauermann wrote:
[...]
>I see two things to face, first:
>Describing Information items as such, such as tools, websites, 
>presentaitons, tutorials. This should be done using RSS 1.0, and in some 
>cases when needed extended using DOAP, foaf, etc. This is pretty 
>straightforward, please review and update this site until you agree:
>http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/InfoGathering/DataVocabulary
Not sure about the RSS design decision, it pretty much restricts
the resource types to documents, so we can't really use it as an
"umbrella" spec. My 2 highly redundant cents:
- I found DOAP to work fine for most things software, DCMI provides a 
  number of handy resource type URIs[1] which could be used to augment
  doap:Version resources (e.g. dctype:Collection, dctype:Dataset,
  dctype:InteractiveResource, dctype:Service), or owl:Ontology for
  projects that produce vocabularies (e.g. the FOAF project)
- tags (skos:subject, or dc:subject) for more specific stuff (personal
  preference: the more fine-grained skos options)
- Danny's review vocab[2] for ratings/reviews
- a combination of the two rdf/iCal specs[3][4] (with and without
  timezone-datatyped timestamps) for events

Cheers,
Ben

[1] http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/
[2] http://www.purl.org/stuff/rev
[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/icaltzd
[4] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical



>
>Second is the problem of capturing all the different "types" of things, 
>for example "RDF api" "rdf editor" "rdf database" "rdf converter" 
>"person" "project" "eu project" "research project" etc etc.... this can 
>go on forever.
>
>I suggest to use SKOS for this, which is fine to make such taxonomies. 
>The concepts defined here are great entry points for categorization on 
>the website, and we can make all the web 2.0 goodness like tag clouds 
>and other stuff from it.
>Here is the wiki page on that:
>http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/InfoGathering/ClassificationOntology
>
>The decision to the second part is not easy, the same can be achieved 
>using RDF classes/subclasses. The problem here is that the taxonomy can 
>easily explode and doesn't necessarily have to be super-correct all the 
>time. This is (and probably will remain) fuzzy and therefore I chose 
>skos. Please give feedback.
>
>Still unsolved is the issue of "rating" things, "popular" items, etc - 
>any ideas?
>add them to the wiki page without much asking, we need to get forward.
>
>best
>Leo
>
>-- 
>____________________________________________________
>DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 
>
>Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
>Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
>Trippstadter Strasse 122
>P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
>D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
>Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de
>
>Geschaeftsfuehrung:
>Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
>Dr. Walter Olthoff
>Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
>Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
>Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
>____________________________________________________
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 26 February 2007 10:25:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:35 GMT