- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:53:56 +0000
- To: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
- Cc: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Jiri, On 22 Feb 2010, at 10:51, Jiří Procházka wrote: > I wonder if we as a group of people > interested in Semantic Web could come up with etiquette for ontology > mapping. Interesting topic! My €0.02: If the other vocabulary is likely to be - more stable - more mature - more likely to be widely used - more likely to be around for a longer time then you should map your terms to it. If not, don't. So IMO the rdfg vocabulary should map to the SPARQL Service Description vocabulary as soon as it becomes REC, but SPARQL-SD should NOT map to rdfg. Best, Richard > > Best, > Jiri > >> >> Hope that helps. >> >> thanks, >> .greg >> >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#id41794 >> >
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 12:54:33 UTC