Re: Vocab Design (was GoodRelations Light)

Hi Renato:

On May 4, 2011, at 6:00 AM, Renato Iannella wrote:

>> Conceptually, multiple namespaces are good.
>> For a markup-centric ecosystem, multiple namespaces are burdensome.
>> The same applies to URIs for codes vs. authoritative literals.
> 
> What concerns me the most is the use of single namespaces in new vocabularies - when there is clear and obvious overlaps with semantics with common vocabs like Dublin Core and vCard.

I agree that this is not good; on the other hand, redundant properties are easy to consolidate in any SemWeb dataspace.
I think there are much more serious pitfalls of designing good Web ontologies.

> It would be good if we (the SW Community thru W3C) started to reward good design and promote reuse of vocabularies.

The most powerful way would be to provide a validator tool that spots such problems, in combination with a "W3C compliant Web vocabulary" banner. However, spotting the local definition of properties that should be reused is difficult to spot - maybe at the superficial lexical level.

> 
> Cheers...
> 
> Renato Iannella
> Semantic Identity
> http://semanticidentity.com
> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
> 
> 

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 06:43:07 UTC