- From: Alexander Korth <alex@ttbc.de>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:06:17 +0200
- To: public-xg-socialweb@w3.org
Hi all, The most important aspect here is that they do the marketing and the implementation ease to make sites owners annotate their sites. The choice of the vocabulary is secondary. What was the problem again of site owners annotating web sites with meta tags years ago? It was too hard to do, the benefit was too blurry and it was not well marketed. What do you think? Greets, Alex On 27.04.2010, at 18:57, Toby Inkster wrote: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:18:04 +1000 > Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au> wrote: > >> Disappointing in that they ignore the past and "reinvent" a new >> namespace for already well established semantics.... > > It's not difficult to pick holes in the OGP schema, but I think it's > more important to support the idea overall. The bigger point is that > they chose to reuse RDF rather than inventing their own proprietary > markup. Given that choice, you can use off-the-shelf reasoning tools to > map OGP's schema to whatever other vocabs you like. If they hadn't used > RDF, that would be a whole lot harder. > > Besides which, most OGP properties don't have drop-in replacements in > existing vocabs. For example the following triple: > > <> og:region ?place . > > Is not really equivalent to: > > <> foaf:based_near ?place . > > But is closer to: > > <> foaf:primaryTopic [foaf:based_near [rdfs:label ?place]] . > > If they'd reused existing vocabs, they probably wouldn't have been able > to keep their data structure as flat as it is. This flat schema may > prove important for adoption. > > -- > Toby A Inkster > <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> > <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> > > VG, Alex -- Alexander Korth www.twitter.com/alexkorth
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2010 07:06:47 UTC