Re: Proposal to assess the quality of Linked Data sources

• From: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
• Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:47:41 +0100
• To: public-lod@w3.org
• Message-ID: <4D66B5DD.1000202@elbklang.net>

Hi Annika,

this is quite interesting. Well done!

Here are my remarks:

- "no redefinition of existing vocabularies" - sometimes it necessary 
e.g., to achieve an OWL DL compiliance of an utilized vocabulary that 
doesn't fulfil this requirement originally

- any reason for being sometimes quite strict re. the selected relations 
for specific indicators (e.g. 4.1) i.e., SIOC is for online communities 
and hence rather specific for that domain

- "stating the content-types as specifically as possible" is quite 
vague ;) and what are you intending with 'content-types'? media types?

- "A vocabulary is said to be established, if it is one of the 100 most 
popular vocabularies stated on prex.cc" - uhm, as the results from 
Richard's evaluation have, this is quite arguable

- re. rdfs:label/rdfs:comment vs. dc:title/dc:description, AFAIK, it is 
a common practice to use the former one for universal definitions and 
the latter one for particular definitions

That's all for the moment ;)

Cheers,


Bob

Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 19:48:14 UTC