- From: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
- Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:19:46 +0100
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- 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>
Hello SWEO, Danny, Es begab sich aber da Danny Ayers zur rechten Zeit 27.02.2007 15:13 folgendes schrieb: > 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. We asked Michael K Bergman from "sweet tools"[1] to provide their data in RDF/XML, he loved the idea and asked: tell me which RDF vocab to use. Dave Beckett's list is already in RDF/RSS. If we provide a RDF data format description that can be used by others to express their lists of resources, we can aggregate their data and import it to a portal, or aggregate it and provide the data as feed/SPARQL endpoint. Kingsley Idehen has had many arguments that favor this approach, and we have collected more on the wiki page - showing rdf works, spreading work amongst many, including existing people and their work, etc. here is the idea: http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/InfoGathering (heading "Management of Information Items") > >> 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. > I find only one scarce reference to SKOS on this page. http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/#example And they don't use skos, if they had, they would have represented tags as Skos concepts and not with the "Tag" class, also the tagging can be expressed using "skos:subject" and reifying the statement, adding date and author, the property :relatedTag is isomorphic to skos:related, etc etc etc. I don't think that the holygoat approach is feasible for us, nor that it reuses SKOS. If we stick to SKOS alone, we can expect more tool support, SKOS has a vivid community. There are MANY vocabularies which address Tagging (I think Tom Gruber also made one), but I think SKOS goes a more generic approach and personally I want to push and support the W3C SKOS vocabulary than others ;-) cheers Leo [1]http://www.mkbergman.com/?page_id=325 -- ____________________________________________________ DI Leo Sauermann http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH Trippstadter Strasse 122 P.O. Box 2080 Fon: +49 631 20575-116 D-67663 Kaiserslautern Fax: +49 631 20575-102 Germany Mail: leo.sauermann@dfki.de Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter Olthoff Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 ____________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 2 March 2007 10:23:14 UTC