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

Re: data format for gathered information

From: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:19:46 +0100
Message-ID: <45E7FA42.3000907@dfki.de>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
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>

Hello SWEO, Danny,

Es begab sich aber da Danny Ayers zur rechten Zeit 27.02.2007 15:13 
folgendes schrieb:
> 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.
We asked Michael K Bergman from "sweet tools"[1] to provide their data 
in RDF/XML, he loved the idea and asked: tell me which RDF vocab to use. 
Dave Beckett's list is already in RDF/RSS.

If we provide a RDF data format description that can be used by others 
to express their lists of resources, we can aggregate their data and 
import it to a portal, or aggregate it and provide the data as 
feed/SPARQL endpoint.
Kingsley Idehen has had many arguments that favor this approach, and we 
have collected more on the wiki page - showing rdf works, spreading work 
amongst many, including existing people and their work, etc.

here is the idea:
(heading "Management of Information Items")

>>  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.
I find only one scarce reference to SKOS on this page.

And they don't use skos, if they had, they would have represented tags 
as Skos concepts and not with the "Tag" class,
also the tagging can be expressed using "skos:subject" and reifying the 
statement, adding date and author,
the property :relatedTag is isomorphic to skos:related, etc etc etc.
I don't think that the holygoat approach is feasible for us, nor that it 
reuses SKOS.
If we stick to SKOS alone, we can expect more tool support, SKOS has a 
vivid community.

There are MANY vocabularies which address Tagging (I think Tom Gruber 
also made one), but I think SKOS goes a more generic approach and 
personally I want to push and support the W3C SKOS vocabulary than 
others ;-)



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

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 Friday, 2 March 2007 10:23:14 UTC

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