- 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>
PS... oh, look... Listpoint has free and paid aspects too ;) http://wiki.listpoint.co.uk/index.php?title=Does_it_cost_anything_to_use%3F -----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