- From: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:46:54 +0200 (EET)
- To: Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com>
- cc: AzamatAbdoullaev <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>, Brandon Schwartz <brandon@boomajoom.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On 2011-01-17, Martin Hepp wrote: > I am working (already pretty much done) on an ontology for real estate > that complements GoodRelations. There is no harm if anyone else > defines his / her own one, but since offer and demand for real estate > is a huge usecase, I kindly ask you to try to make your vocabulary > GoodRelations-compatible so that one can use GR for the commercial > part. I'm not working on anything, much less anything competing. And I agree: competing, incompatible vocabularies are a total bitch to deal with. So, we should try to make our vocabularies open and then mashable. For the most part that shoudl be pretty easy. The trouble really comes about if and when we a) do not declare the necessary owl:Unique-type metadata from the get go which enables automated mashups, or b) we go with nonstandard rendering of n-ary relations. > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/Own_GoodRelations_Vocabularies I'll take a look at those as well, in time. But just for interest: no code, or even data, is coming from my corner right now. -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 18:47:36 UTC