- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:25:32 -0500
- CC: public-sweo-ig@w3.org
Leo Sauermann wrote: > Hi Kingsley, SWEO > > Es begab sich aber da Kingsley Idehen zur rechten Zeit 02.03.2007 > 17:40 folgendes schrieb: >> >> Leo Sauermann wrote: >>> Which classes and properties from SIOC are essentially needed beyond >>> the mentioned vocabularies? >>> please add them to the wiki page, just add a new section on SIOC. >>> For which information types listed in [2] do we need SIOC? >>> >>> perhaps you could give some comprehensive RDF examples how data >>> expressed in SIOC would look like in our case, please add some RDF >>> examples to the wiki page so that we can evaluate this better >>> >>> (see where there is already one example, just add more) >>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/InfoGathering/DataVocabulary >>> >>> [2] >>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/InfoGathering/ClassificationOntology >>> >> Leo, >> >> I will do just that :-) > ok, very good. >> >> BTW - Also take a look at: >> http://wiki.sioc-project.org/index.php/TypesModule > I see that this is quite a good collection. perhaps also add this link > to the wiki page (section on vocabularies, where DC is) > > I made a change to the typesModule, I think you should use RSS in > favor of atom/owl.... (atom/owl is not so much as used RSS 1.0) Leo, Yes, SIOC is in a little flux right now. It will settle down this week and then I believe it's relevance as a Generic Glue Ontology for his effort will be much clearer. All the kinks (source of confusion across an myriad of fronts) have been resolved. Kingsley > > best > Leo > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 14:26:43 UTC