Re: Propose

Thanks, Dan.

It would be easy to convert existing data into an format 
(once we created it), but I guess this brings me back to a fundamental 
question: what is the purpose of

I realize the site and the blog try to explain this, but I'm still not
entirely clear on the purpose.

Is supposed to replace OWL and other ontologies? Is it a
build-from-scratch ontology for Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/Yandex?

Or does it serve some other purpose?

More specifically, under what circumstances is it useful to create a new
vocabulary for and under what circumstances is it not?

And in what way should ontologies differ from OWL's?

As a note, I think is another vocabulary that
needs, but I sense I'm misunderstanding the point.

On Thu, 28 May 2015, Dan Brickley wrote:

> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 22:18:58 +0100
> From: Dan Brickley <>
> To: Barry Carter <>
> Cc: Mailing List <>
> Subject: Re: Propose
> On 27 May 2015 at 22:11, Barry Carter <> wrote:
>> I'd like to propose an ontology for astronomical objects such as stars,
>> planets, satellites, asteroids/planetoids, etc.
>> We could either use the existing OWL astronomy ontology:
>> or create a simplified subset.
>> I'll flesh this out a bit more if there is sufficient community interest.
> Thanks. Are you aware of publishers who are putting relevant
> structured information into HTML sites already that would be
> candidates for adoption? Or that are doing other kinds of Web-based
> data sharing (XML/CSV/JSON etc.)...?
> Dan

Received on Thursday, 28 May 2015 23:57:30 UTC