Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Michael Hausenblas
Is this you? Claim Profile »
9 months ago
in RDFa Trials and Travails on Play the Web
Rob,
Fair criticism re vocabularies. In my experience it is about 80% reuse of existing vocabularies (or ontologies, if you need to impress you boss;) and only in few cases you need to invent terms on your own.
Please have a look at the following URIs and let me know in case you need more:
+ http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Onotlogies
+ http://esw.w3.org/topic/VocabularyMarket
+ http://www.schemaweb.info/ (not actively maintained)
Btw, a good way to develop vocabularies and or exchange thoughts would be a VoCamp (http://vocamp.org/wiki/Main_Page).
Cheers,
Michael
Fair criticism re vocabularies. In my experience it is about 80% reuse of existing vocabularies (or ontologies, if you need to impress you boss;) and only in few cases you need to invent terms on your own.
Please have a look at the following URIs and let me know in case you need more:
+ http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Onotlogies
+ http://esw.w3.org/topic/VocabularyMarket
+ http://www.schemaweb.info/ (not actively maintained)
Btw, a good way to develop vocabularies and or exchange thoughts would be a VoCamp (http://vocamp.org/wiki/Main_Page).
Cheers,
Michael
1 reply
The vocabulary (or excuse me, ontology ;) that I've put together only adds a few terms so 80/20 theory holds true in our case. These added terms all revolve around describing different kinds of attribution; source, yes, but what nature of source? A copy? Derived work? Inspiration?
A shame to have just missed VoCampOxford. That would have been a wonderful trip.
Cheers,
Rob