Re: AW: SemWeb terminology page

Point taken, Ed! I was trying to answer the initial email, but it is certainly wiser to think about the objective first...

Antoine


> 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 11:32:04 UTC