- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:13:32 +0100
- To: "Leo Sauermann" <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
- Cc: "W3C SWEO IG" <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "Benjamin Nowack" <bnowack@appmosphere.com>, "Ian Davis" <Ian.Davis@talis.com>
On 27/02/07, Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de> wrote: > Es begab sich aber da Danny Ayers zur rechten Zeit 22.02.2007 20:25 > folgendes schrieb: > > Quick thoughts: I see the motivation re. reuse, but rather than trying > to use solely RSS 1.0 for the items, it might be better to use more > precise terms where they exist, as_well_as the RSS terms, e.g. > > <http://example.org/doc> a rss:item; a foaf:Document . > I also thought about this, but if you require from all participants to do > that, it sucks. > Why should anyone annotate two types if one is enough? This is the format > we expect external data to be in, > inference should add the additional triples. I wasn't really expecting the "external" participants to be providing the data in RDF/XML. > For the taxo stuff, SKOS sounds a very good idea generally, though I > wouldn't be surprised if there were existing vocabs that could be used > for things like "tutorial" etc. > I'll cc Ian, he hangs around libraries... > > It might also be worth considering (perhaps redundantly again) the Tag > Ontology at > http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/ > SKOS covers this and more, so would rather use skos. That ontology uses SKOS to define the concepts associated with folksonomy tags, I thought they might be useful in this context. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 14:13:38 UTC