Re: Intranet ontology?

Alex,

The way the Semantic Web works, and this is what makes it very
different from everything else, is that you use a mixture of
global ontologies like foaf:Person and dc:title and a number
of other ontologies which are relevant, and the add
on some more to make up what you need.

If this sounds like a mess, it is in fact the pattern which
actually is optimal: it maximizes the ability of your company
to get the widest interoperability for the concepts which are widely
shared, and full interop locally with itself.

I have written this up  in http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fractal.html
and specifically http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fractal.html#TCO

I hope that helps you hit a happy balance between build and buy,
and adjust it with time as necessary.

Tim BL

On 2012-02 -20, at 02:42, Alexander Johannesen wrote:

> Hiya,
> 
> "Rob Styles" <rs@kasabi.com> wrote:
> > I think you'll find everything you need, it's just that they won't be in one place, they'll be modular.
> 
> Yeah, that's one way, but I'm suspecting two things; the mixins will mostly deal with entities, not relations, and b) there's just so much in the Intranet domain that the model becomes a bit of a mess.
> 
> One thing is content management, as someone else pointed out (thanks!), but the more complex stuff that goes on in any company is sorely missing, as well as a ton of often-used / popular content types, interactions, groupings, both in terms of participants, content and a network setup. And how about relationships between business entities?
> 
> I was hoping someone had something akin to a "SAP ontology" as tons of this is tried and tested, but I'm having a hard time finding a well-balanced ontology for generic businesses modeling (as opposed to business modling; plenty of that, yet surprisingly irellevant :) )
> Thanks,
> 
> Alex
>