W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009

Re: vCard - Old vs. New?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 13:03:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4A041165.8010108@danbri.org>
To: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>, Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
On 8/5/09 12:45, Damian Steer wrote:
>
> On 7 May 2009, at 20:40, Mark Birbeck wrote:
>
>> I've used the term 'argot' to describe a collection of terms for a
>> particular purpose. They don't necessarily all belong to the same
>> vocabulary, but by grouping them together, it makes it easier for
>> people to get a handle on the terms that they might use in a
>> particular context.
>
> By the sounds of it this is much the same as an 'Application Profile'
> [1] in the DC community. I tried using OWL (+ closed world reasoning) to
> express them, which sounds similar. Your term has the virtue of brevity,
> and I may steal it :-)

	Bruce Sterling defines argot as

	"the deliberately hermetic language of a small knowledge clique... a 
super-specialized geek cult language that has no traction in the real 
world." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argot

Sounds about right! ;)

Re OWL/SPARQL and integrity checks, see also 
http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/2009/02/11/integrity-constraints-for-owl/ 
and 
http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/2009/05/07/owl-integrity-constraints-serql-and-new-sparql/ 
plus the old schemarama stuff that built on query languages, 
http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/02/schemarama/ and (seemingly offline) 
http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/schemarama/how.html

Once upon a time, some of us had an EU project proposal that included 
the creation of a "recipies" directory, linking instance examples, 
SPARQL queries and practical use cases. The EU reviewers in their 
infinite wisdom sent the taxpayer's euros elsewhere, but I still have 
fondness for the idea.

Re DCMI (and cc:'ing Tom Baker) it's certainly true that the Dublin Core 
effort in recent years has emphasised the combination of independently 
maintained vocabularies, rather than trying to address all needs through 
directly extending DC.

* BTW if you hurry you can get a paper into the next DC conference, 
which closes today: http://www.dublincore.org/ *

I encourage folk interested in this topic to take a look at the drafts 
on the Dublin Core site:

     * Description Set Profiles: A constraint language for Dublin Core 
Application Profiles.
     * A MoinMoin Wiki Syntax for Description Set Profiles.
     * Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles.

all linked from http://www.dublincore.org/documents/  but here are the 
links to save a click:
http://www.dublincore.org/documents/2008/03/31/dc-dsp/
http://www.dublincore.org/documents/2008/10/06/dsp-wiki-syntax/
http://www.dublincore.org/documents/2008/11/03/profile-guidelines/

Also re argot, see also Tom's papers re DC as a pidgin language,
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/baker/10baker.html
http://www.dl.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/ISDL97/proceedings/thomas/thomas.html

"Either way, real pidgins are living languages that continually evolve 
through use in public speech and the mass media. If pidgin metadata is 
not to be constrained too tightly by its own rules from evolving 
naturally, it will need a mechanism that supports such collective, 
ongoing negotiation." (this was back in 1997!)

Maybe some combination of wikis and sparql could provide such a mechanism?

cheers,

Dan


> [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_profile>
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 May 2009 11:03:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:29 GMT