- From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:59:31 +1000
- To: "KANZAKI Masahide" <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu>, "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "Reto Bachmann-Gmür" <reto@gmuer.ch>, "Leo Sauermann" <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>, public-sweo-ig@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, "Paul Roe" <p.roe@qut.edu.au>, "James Michael Hogan" <j.hogan@qut.edu.au>
On 17/01/2008, KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com> wrote: > yep, you can think, for example, an Wikipedia page as a Subject Indicator. > > :me a foaf:Person; foaf:interest wikipedia:Semantic_Web . > wikipedia:Semantic_Web foaf:primaryTopic concept:Semantic_Web . > > => :me foaf:topic_interest concept:Semantic_Web . > > In a sense, foaf:interest uses the object document as *an* indicator > of the subject(URI of such document is a Subject Identifier). And a > (P)SI can indicate the subject by using an IFP such as > foaf:primaryTopic. > > So we can almost think that an Wikipedia page is an PSI, except it > doesn't satisfy the last requirement of PSI: "A Published Subject > Indicator must explicitly state the unique URI that is to be used as > its Published Subject Identifier" (3.1.3 in spec). This is a clean way to define the identifier without creating a new standard, other than the ontology. Of course, there is no need to intrude on wikipedia, as it has its own interests at heart and holds no claims to keep consistent URI's or to keep articles at any of their URI's. DBPedia seems like a better option for overlaying the knowledge in wikipedia with semantics. I speak mainly because there are some editors on wikipedia who would prefer not to have semantic markup on pages because it makes them ugly (equating wikipedia's infoboxes to semantic content here), and is possibly incorrect (philosophy of not publishing anything till it is perfect and correct), and there is nothing a group of outsiders can do to change their point of view it seems. Wikipedia also does not create concepts until there is a sufficient amount of "reliably published" information about them, and if they are of no interest to people outside of the immediate community. This leaves it closed to new information, so semantics can't grow within its vocabulary framework, and there can never be a proliferation of identifiers which are not going to be used outside of a small interest group. An equivalent wiki somewhere based on a specific interest area could go past the second restriction easily, but may still need to hold onto the first restriction otherwise it may be seen as unreliable. I would be inclined to keep the new and constantly changing identifiers within an organisations intranet-wiki and then publish their relationships to outside identifiers when they become accepted/published/interesting to outsiders. Peter Ansell
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 00:59:38 UTC