W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > October 2012

RE: Property Guidance

From: Michael Hopwood <michael@editeur.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:52:59 +0100
To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
CC: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F61A8945B05715448AF2221FB60809250734DC8867@EX27MAIL03.msghub.com>
PS... oh, look... Listpoint has free and paid aspects too ;)


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hopwood 
Sent: 26 October 2012 13:51
To: 'John Erickson'
Cc: Leigh Dodds; public-lod community
Subject: RE: Property Guidance

VMF has fees to register terms, but that's because it takes time, tools and talent to do (and curate) the mappings.

Most vocabularies and related tools have cost *someone's* money and other resources to produce, and as for curation...!

It is free to access, however, which is not always the case even with some widely-used vocabularies...(!)

Listpoint looks like a nice platform for doing technical aspects of management but it isn't going to give you reliable, structured semantics in a dependable way.

That requires human intellectual effort at some point, sometimes rather a lot of it, and actually, as I said, compared to the costs of some major (and even some minor) existing standards, the VMF's registration fees are really not that huge.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Erickson [mailto:olyerickson@gmail.com] 
Sent: 26 October 2012 12:50
To: Michael Hopwood
Cc: Leigh Dodds; public-lod community
Subject: Re: Property Guidance

Whoa, haven't thought about VMF for a while...wondering where a fee-based <http://bit.ly/P7SYG0> vocabulary cross-reference like VMF fits. On the one hand, there are Open/Free ways to solve the problem; on the other, cross references like VMF and code lists <c.f.
http://www.listpoint.co.uk/> (which solve a somewhat different problem).

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:57 AM, Michael Hopwood <michael@editeur.org> wrote:
> Hi Leigh,
> At the risk of being repetitive, it is another fairly good use case 
> for the VMF architecture: http://www.doi.org/VMF/documents.html
> The difference there is that you build consensus with the publisher of 
> the vocabulary/property at the same time as building the equivalence 
> table, and maintain an authoritative version that anyone can refer to.
> Cheers,
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
> To: public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:08 AM
> Subject: Property Guidance
> Hi,
> I came across a nice report on twitter yesterday (apologies, I can't 
> recall from whom), which provides some guidance on creating Linked 
> Data for Bibliographic Data:
> http://aims.fao.org/lode/bd
> Specifically it recommends a number of properties and provides 
> guidance on how to select between alternatives. It includes some flow 
> diagrams to help describe the selection -- something I've not seen 
> before and which seems like a nice way to present the options.
> Has anyone done this in other circumstances?
> As an exercise I drafted a table (available in a Google Spreadsheet
> [1]) to start mapping out some guidance for Equivalence Links [2].
> Does anyone have any comments?
> Cheers,
> L.
> [1]. http://bit.ly/equivalence-links-guide
> [2]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/equivalence-links.html
> --
> Leigh Dodds
> Freelance Technologist
> Open Data, Linked Data Geek
> t: @ldodds
> w: ldodds.com
> e: leigh@ldodds.com

John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director, Web Science Operations
Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
<http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com> Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 12:53:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:34 UTC