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

Re: data format for gathered information

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:13:32 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0702270613w17bd0089xd3b8eaf5b5760583@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Leo Sauermann" <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Cc: "W3C SWEO IG" <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "Benjamin Nowack" <bnowack@appmosphere.com>, "Ian Davis" <Ian.Davis@talis.com>

On 27/02/07, Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de> wrote:

>  Es begab sich aber da Danny Ayers zur rechten Zeit 22.02.2007 20:25
> folgendes schrieb:
>  Quick thoughts: I see the motivation re. reuse, but rather than trying
>  to use solely RSS 1.0 for the items, it might be better to use more
>  precise terms where they exist, as_well_as the RSS terms, e.g.
>  <http://example.org/doc> a rss:item; a foaf:Document .
>  I also thought about this, but if you require from all participants to do
> that, it sucks.
>  Why should anyone annotate two types if one is enough? This is the format
> we expect external data to be in,
>  inference should add the additional triples.

I wasn't really expecting the "external" participants to be providing
the data in RDF/XML.

>  For the taxo stuff, SKOS sounds a very good idea generally, though I
>  wouldn't be surprised if there were existing vocabs that could be used
>  for things like "tutorial" etc.
>  I'll cc Ian, he hangs around libraries...
>  It might also be worth considering (perhaps redundantly again) the Tag
>  Ontology at
>  http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/
>  SKOS covers this and more, so would rather use skos.

That ontology uses SKOS to define the concepts associated with
folksonomy tags, I thought they might be useful in this context.



Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 14:13:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:52 UTC