W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Why RDF? was: ISSUE-160: Allowing collections in semantic relationships

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:04:07 +0100
Message-ID: <494F8237.3050709@danbri.org>
To: Leonard Will <L.Will@willpowerinfo.co.uk>
Cc: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, "public-swd-wg@w3.org" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

On 22/12/08 12:48, Leonard Will wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 at 11:15:15, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote

(quick reply for now, packing for a flight :)

> If you just use concepts from multiple schemes without building
> relationships between then, then you lose the benefits of a structured,
> controlled vocabulary.

In a public linked information system the size of the Web, even 'just' 
using concepts from multiple schemes does effectively indicate some 
(loose) relationships between them. And the correlations we look for 
don't even need to be that the concepts are applied to the same 
document. Same author or even organization is still interesting.

But I take your point re difficulties of mapping. I suspect the lowest 
hanging fruit here is w.r.t. concepts that stand for some particular 
individual thing, rather than a topic or broad subject area.



Received on Monday, 22 December 2008 12:04:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:55 UTC