- From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:05:35 -0400
- To: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
- CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Dmitry Ulanov <dulanov@gmail.com>, Aperture Developers <aperture-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, semantic-web@w3.org, Antoni Mylka <antoni.mylka@gmail.com>, Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>, Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Hi Leo, Leo Sauermann wrote: ... >> I really want to recommend good, clear, stable vocabularies for >> developers to use. These developers may not have any apriori >> background or interest in RDF. > we have the same interest and after months of discussion with desktop > search engine developers, have tried to reach consensus, but never did :-/# > Antoni Mylka discussed with the different developers for months. > It is hard work to explain RDF to developers. Also, the KDE people want > only to use datatype properties (only literals) whereas Nepomuk needs > object properties. I understand the impulse to only use literals, but I think everyone -- including users -- often need more than that. I think this is the major failing of XMP. My understanding from one of the KOffice developers, BTW, is that they would like to implement the new ODF metadata support. > In Nepomuk, the project that funds our work, we have to deliver the > first prototypes in 5 days, and then, evaluate them in a scientific > experiment (usability studies, desktop search studies, etc). We move > aperture.sf.net to NIE now and hope that we reach consensus sometimes in > the future :-/ > > I would *love* to discuss and merge our two approaches into one, but > simply said: we cannot do that now. No problem :-) >> So I'd like to be able to suggest a representation for agents be used >> generally in ODF. I'd also like to use pieces of it to represent >> agents, addresses, and events in the new bibliographic ontology work >> some of us are involved in, which I also want to use in ODF: >> >> <http://bibliontology.com> > We haven't focussed on bib in nepomuk yet, > if you convince the bibsonomy.org people to use your ontology, that > would help to get us in. (they are project member) One of more of them may be on our mailing list; am not sure. Our primary practical use case is the excellent Firefox extension Zotero, which unlike most bibliographic tools, is run my humanities people (historians; much more demanding metadata needs). ... > My suggestion: we ask the W3C RDF Working groups (best > practices/deployment, SWEO, where I am a member) to start a new working > group "ontology standardization" which hosts a list of ontologies and a > mailinglist. > Once anyone has the idea "I want to make a new ontology", this > mailinglist is the place. ... we should move this to a new thread. So, > we announce that "I will make an ontology for X" before it happens :-) Good idea. Bruce
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 18:06:51 UTC