- From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:21:29 -0500
- To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
I guess it gets back to what we are trying to do with this Semantic Web Terminology Page [1]. If it really is a list of useful Semantic Web and Linked Data terminology then assuming RDF doesn't seem like a problem. If the page is going to also include library terminology, and try to relate library terminology to semantic web terminology I think we are doing something different...and more difficult. //Ed [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Semantic_Web_terminology On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > Well, it does avoid some hassles, but in fact it does not answer anymore the > initial need, which was to find a label for: > 1. things like FOAF, FRAD and other "metadata schemas" > 2. things like AAT, LCSH, VIAF and other "value sets"/"vocabulary encoding > schemes" (to take DC abstrac model terminology) > > For the first RDF vocabulary would be ok, except that they're not always in > RDF (yet). Or would that idea for that category be "stuff that would be > represented as RDF vocabularies"? It's alright with me, since we're a linked > data-oriented group so can afford quite a biased view on the world ;-) > > For the second dataset indeed applies to them, but it is perhaps a bit too > broad. RDF conversion of bibliographic catalogs would also be datasets. What > we wanted to address was this set of reference values to be used for other > datasets. Perhaps on linked data this distinction does not operate anymore, > from a technical perspective. But it becomes difficult to explain to non-LD > people then if we lose all anchoring to their world. > Perhaps we should keep using a less elegant but quite explicit "authorities > and KOS resources" as in the topic list [1]--I'd prefer "KOS" as a general > umbrella, but I guess it can be confusing to others... > > Antoine > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Topics#CM._Conceptual_Models_and_KOS > >> +1 - seems to avoid some hassles mentioned earlier. >> >> Cheers, Joachim >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] Im >> Auftrag von Ed Summers >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. November 2010 22:51 >> An: public-lld >> Betreff: Re: SemWeb terminology page >> >> Personally, I like the term "RDF Vocabulary" to talk about RDF schemas >> and OWL ontologies like FOAF, SKOS, DCTERMS, etc. >> >> I tend to use "Dataset" from VoID [1] to refer to a bounded collection >> of web resources e.g. id.loc.gov/authorities, viaf.org, etc. >> >> I think one of the lessons from the DCAM is that we should limit the >> amount of vocabulary we ourselves have to create to talk about things. >> But that doesn't make for very lengthy dissertations though I guess >> :-) >> >> //Ed >> >> [1] http://vocab.deri.ie/void/guide >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 11:21:58 UTC