- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:35:26 -0400
- CC: jeff.pollock@oracle.com, public-sweo-ig@w3.org
john.nj.davies@bt.com wrote: > Jeff, > > Nice presentation. This is an issue I sometimes find myself having to address. I tend to present Web2.0 and OWL-based (say) ontologies as at 2 ends of a continuum, with taxonomies in the middle and thesauri, term lists, etc at different places on the line. > > In my view there is no mutual exclusivity here - in one recent exchange to try and get this point across I said: > > "Some things (flickr) will have a folksonomy and no interest or requirement in moving to an ontology or other more formal structure. Some things (healthcare apps) will use a formal logic-based ontology and would kill people (in the case of health) if they relied on clinician's inputting semi-random tags. Some things (some semantic wiki apps, for example) will benefit from marrying Web 2.0 and semantic technology." > John, I have started to tackle the mutual exclusivity myth by demonstrating Flickr, Del.icio.us and the like can act as RDF data sources courtesy of their Web Services :-) Just see my latest blog posts or the links below: 1. Del.icio.us - http://demo.openlinksw.com/DAV/home/demo/Public/Queries/delicious_web20_events_dataspace.isparql.xml (Semantic Web Events) 2. Flickr - http://demo.openlinksw.com/DAV/home/demo/Public/Queries/flickr_semanticweb_rdf_dataspace.isparql.xml (Photos tagged under 'rdf' and 'semanticweb' ; you can click on the image URIs for image metadata etc.) Of course I could have joined the two data sources (each a Named Graph in their own right to make this even more interesting). -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 17:35:48 UTC