W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2007

Re: [Aperture-devel] vCard Meeting 7/18 - 2 ET?

From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:05:35 -0400
Message-ID: <46A790EF.8000707@gmail.com>
To: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Dmitry Ulanov <dulanov@gmail.com>, Aperture Developers <aperture-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, semantic-web@w3.org, Antoni Mylka <antoni.mylka@gmail.com>, Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>, Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>

Hi Leo,

Leo Sauermann wrote:

...

>> I really want to recommend good, clear, stable vocabularies for 
>> developers to use. These developers may not have any apriori 
>> background or interest in RDF.
> we have the same interest and after months of discussion with desktop 
> search engine developers, have tried to reach consensus, but never did :-/#
> Antoni Mylka discussed with the different developers for months.
> It is hard work to explain RDF to developers. Also, the KDE people want 
> only to use datatype properties (only literals) whereas Nepomuk needs 
> object properties.

I understand the impulse to only use literals, but I think everyone -- 
including users -- often need more than that. I think this is the major 
failing of XMP.

My understanding from one of the KOffice developers, BTW, is that they 
would like to implement the new ODF metadata support.

> In Nepomuk, the project that funds our work, we have to deliver the 
> first prototypes in 5 days, and then, evaluate them in a scientific 
> experiment (usability studies, desktop search studies, etc). We move 
> aperture.sf.net to NIE now and hope that we reach consensus sometimes in 
> the future :-/
> 
> I would *love* to discuss and merge our two approaches into one, but 
> simply said: we cannot do that now.

No problem :-)

>> So I'd like to be able to suggest a representation for agents be used 
>> generally in ODF. I'd also like to use pieces of it to represent 
>> agents, addresses, and events in the new bibliographic ontology work 
>> some of us are involved in, which I also want to use in ODF:
>>
>>     <http://bibliontology.com>
> We haven't focussed on bib in nepomuk yet,
> if you convince the bibsonomy.org people to use your ontology, that 
> would help to get us in. (they are project member)

One of more of them may be on our mailing list; am not sure.

Our primary practical use case is the excellent Firefox extension 
Zotero, which unlike most bibliographic tools, is run my humanities 
people (historians; much more demanding metadata needs).

...

> My suggestion: we ask the W3C RDF Working groups (best 
> practices/deployment, SWEO, where I am a member) to start a new working 
> group "ontology standardization" which hosts a list of ontologies and a 
> mailinglist.
> Once anyone has the idea "I want to make a new ontology", this 
> mailinglist is the place. ... we should move this to a new thread. So, 
> we announce that "I will make an ontology for X" before it happens :-)

Good idea.

Bruce
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 18:06:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:58 UTC