- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:18:20 +0200
- To: "Yoshio Fukushige" <fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On 26/09/06, Yoshio Fukushige <fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com> wrote: > I partly feel it may be a work out of the W3C's scope to nominate such ontologies, > but feel, at the same time, that great(?) many people will be glad to have > a list of such "standard" ontologies for each field of interest. I suspect the Swoogle folks have the right idea in looking at the "standards" that people *are* using, rather than having any authority nominate a certain set. The fact that terms from different vocabularies can be easily intermixed makes everything a lot less rigid. http://swoogle.umbc.edu/ blog: http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/index.php?cat=24 But it would be handy to have a directory with per-subject classification, along the lines of the contents of: http://esw.w3.org/topic/VocabularyMarket (I thought SchemaWeb was heading that way, but that seems to have been quiet recently) I guess something could be put together with a minimum of human effort using a facetted browser like Longwell, though some manual work would probably have to go into classification. Is there a vocabulary for describing vocabularies? (maybe the ontology description bits of OWL plus a bit of Dublin Core and SKOS would cover it...) Maybe a folksonomy tagging system could help? There isn't much in del.icio.us use for rdf+units http://del.icio.us/search/?fr=del_icio_us&p=units+rdf&type=all Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2006 08:18:30 UTC