- From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:02:05 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: "Haffner, Alexander" <A.Haffner@d-nb.de>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
> Generally the whole situation is a mess, and can only be understood
> sociologically / historically. Asking whether eg. 'schemas' and
> 'ontologies' are the same or different doesn't get us very far. Asking
> about which communities used which terms maybe gets us a bit
> further...
Ok, If the question is about communities we're communicating with, then
"element set" would probably work here
(come to think of it, I used "metadata element set" to refer to DC etc.
in my thesis, and later link that to the term "schemas" to denote how DC
looks like in RDF, which then become "metadata element schemas"
I also like "value vocabulary" because it sort of indicates that they go
into the object part ("value") of a triple.
> I quite like 'vocabulary' as it covers schema, ontology, metadata set,
> and also SKOS/thesaurus stuff too.
Yes, but we need separate terms for the things "vocabulary" may
encompass. In other words it's either too broad or means different
things to different people.
Mark
--
Mark van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 15:02:32 UTC