- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:57:50 +0100
- To: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>
- Cc: public-xg-socialweb@w3.org
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:18:04 +1000 Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au> wrote: > Disappointing in that they ignore the past and "reinvent" a new > namespace for already well established semantics.... It's not difficult to pick holes in the OGP schema, but I think it's more important to support the idea overall. The bigger point is that they chose to reuse RDF rather than inventing their own proprietary markup. Given that choice, you can use off-the-shelf reasoning tools to map OGP's schema to whatever other vocabs you like. If they hadn't used RDF, that would be a whole lot harder. Besides which, most OGP properties don't have drop-in replacements in existing vocabs. For example the following triple: <> og:region ?place . Is not really equivalent to: <> foaf:based_near ?place . But is closer to: <> foaf:primaryTopic [foaf:based_near [rdfs:label ?place]] . If they'd reused existing vocabs, they probably wouldn't have been able to keep their data structure as flat as it is. This flat schema may prove important for adoption. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 16:59:36 UTC