- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 04:53:51 +0000
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
> Thoughts? Luv it and would make my life [1] easier :) KUTGW! Cheers, Michael [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/people/ index.html#relating-a-person-to-a-project -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html On 26 Feb 2012, at 20:20, Danny Ayers wrote: > Hello Vocabularians, > > I'd like to float the possibility of a general-purpose project > description sub-schema to get some first impressions before attempting > to build a proper proposal. > > There are lots of applications online (and offline) for project > management, Getting Things Done, todo lists and so on. There are also > quite a lot of more domain-specific systems that have very similar > requirements and would require pretty much the same core vocabulary - > bug trackers being a good example. I believe it would be productive to > be able to expose the data from tools such as these to make e.g. > online status reports machine-readable. > > Some years ago I put together an RDFS schema for this. At the time I > surveyed what was already available and looked for common terms and > very roughly wrote it up. The (still incomplete) result is at [1]. I > don't think anyone else picked up on it, but I did hack around with > using the vocab myself. The basic modeling seemed to work ok, though I > found I didn't actually need a lot of the terms I'd originally listed. > Reviewing it today I reckon perhaps 4 classes and 11 properties form > the core. Of these at least one of the classes (Agent) and maybe 6 of > the properties (mostly time-related) aren't project-specific, suitable > terms probably already exist. There aren't that many so I'll list them > all below. I think they're self-explanatory, though there are working > definitions at the link above. > > *** Classes *** > Project > Task > Goal > Agent > > *** Properties *** > (with usage example) > > hasTask > Project hasTask Task > > hasGoal > Project hasGoal Goal > > priority > (Project | Task | Goal) priority {value} > > status > (Project | Task | Goal) status {value} > > dependsOn > (Project | Task | Goal) dependsOn (Task | Goal) > > hasAgent > (Project | Task | Goal) hasAgent Agent > > the other properties all take literal date values: > > duration > submittedDate > startDate > targetDate > finishDate > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Danny. > > [1] http://purl.org/stuff/project > > -- > http://dannyayers.com > > http://webbeep.it - text to tones and back again >
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 04:54:20 UTC