- From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:27:49 -0400
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: public-lld@w3.org
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Thanks for the comment. It seems to me that you are making a distinction > between ontologies (and value vocabularies) and instance data -- do I have > that right? And that we should emphasize creating URIs for ontologies FIRST, > with URIs for instance data having a second priority. Personally, I don't think we should recommend that cultural heritage organizations start out with Linked Data by creating ontologies first...much the opposite actually. I think the report should encourage the use of existing vocabularies & ontologies to publish some of their unique data sets, and learn what the gaps and discontinuities are first before creating new ontologies. It is already the case that the number of URIs for "instance data" in the Library Linked Data space far exceeds the number for vocabulary terms (ontologies). As such I think it deserves the most emphasis. I think your section about "Develop policies for namespaces" nicely captures some of the issues related to both publishing scenarios. However, the section on registries seems less relevant for instance data. //Ed
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 01:28:16 UTC