RE: Reuse

It has to be said, as well, that commercial semantic reasoning doesn't tend to use the "lightweight" approach of RDF and OWL for serious applications:

http://www.rightscom.com/Portals/0/Formal_Ontology_for_Media_Rights_Transactions.pdf

-m

From: Michael Hopwood [mailto:michael@editeur.org]
Sent: 21 June 2012 11:01
To: Juan Sequeda; Barry Norton
Cc: Denny Vrandecic; public-lod@w3.org
Subject: RE: Reuse

Diverse vocabulary standards I think are neither especially "good" or "bad" in this sense, they are basically just a natural consequence of the fact that:

To describe a set of "stuff" in a given "context" you need a(nother) specific vocabulary - this is just the way that structured, formal language works. See:

http://www.erpanet.org/events/2004/cork/presentations/040617PaskinPIConcepts.pdf - especially final 10 slides on the contextual ontology model.

There is actually an existing service (not called FooBar, sadly) that does precisely this kind of thing:

http://www.doi.org/VMF/documents/VocabularyMappingFrameworkIntroductionV1.0%28091212%29.pdf

It would be great to hear some feedback on it from the LOD communit(y/ies).

Cheers,

Michael