- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 08:42:39 +0200
- To: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
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