- From: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:07:08 +1000
- To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Peter Williams <pezra@barelyenough.org>
On 22 Sep 2010, at 04:02, Peter Williams wrote: > There seem to quite a few examples of vocabularies that reproduce > concepts that exist in other vocabularies. For example, > > * dc:Agent and foaf:Agent > * dc:LicenseDocument, cc:License, doap:License and probably half a > dozen other license classes > * every thing in <http://www.w3.org/Submission/vcard-rdf/> and foaf. With all due respect to the vCardRDF submission - it does not "reproduce concepts" from vCard - but provides the same semantics under the RDF/OWL model. This is indicated in the Introduction. We tired hard not to create 'yet-another' vocab. Others - however - don't follow this and define both new semantics and new namespaces for "borrowed" properties. (and in the space of people-metadata - cause a huge headache for the developer/consumer) To answer your explicit questions.... Obviously the benefits of reuse of vocabularies are significant for interoperability, and when there are deviations in semantics, new terms should be defined (and linked via broader/narrower relationships, eg SKOS) Choosing one vocab (from many) is harder - you need to look at the closest fit and the imprimatur of the group/body behind the vocab spec and its future support plan. Cheers... Renato Iannella Semantic Identity http://semanticidentity.com Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 12:07:44 UTC