Re: Proposal for new type : Vocabulary

I also think that in general, we should limite elements to things that a broad range of Web site owners are likely to apply to site content.

Types and properties that are mainly relevant for people consuming data markup outside of major search engines can be easily deployed using standard practices of Web vocabulary development, in any RDF syntax of choice.

I personally think that the future potential of the "classical" Semantic Web technology stack will turn towards being tooling for consuming structured day for innovative, long-tail applications, while Web-scale "major" search engines will process such data without RDF-based components. 


On Dec 6, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:

> On 3 December 2013 11:19, Bernard Vatant <> wrote:
>> Dear all
>> We're considering adding markup at, and in
>> particular in vocabulary description pages, such as
>> We can now put each vocabulary in the broad CreativeWork type, but what
>> about a more specific "Vocabulary" type, which could be used by any kind of
>> reference vocabulary : glossaries, classifications, ontologies, concept
>> schemes, subject headings, authorities ...
>> An extra would be to have a "definedBy" property to link instances of the
>> oncoming Topic class to an instance of Vocabulary.
>> How does that sound?
> Since this is for a rather limited / professional / expert audience
> (like SKOS), how about just using owl:Ontology ?
> I believe all the other features of OWL are optional (i.e. don't feel
> obliged, and it would be a reasonable use of the term.
> Similarly was defined
> for relating a term to ... where it came from.
> Dan

martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www: (group) (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp

Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
* Project Main Page:

Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 11:34:01 UTC