It looks like a (modern) role for publishers could be to actually put order
in metadata provided by users.
As metadata librarian (apparently they used to call this cataloguing) now
working halfway between publishing and cultural heritage, I can only second
this.
-Original Message-
Wait... there are mistakes in a publically-editable, non-reviewed database?
From: Vishal Sinha [mailto:vishal.sinha...@yahoo.com]
Sent: 11 February 2013 11:01
To: dbpedia-discuss...@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Subject: DBPedia: http://dbpedia.org/resource/Marcos_Escobedo
Hi,
The
At the moment, how much of the data publication and reuse is also volunteer /
short-term project dependent?
If a consortium of big institutional LOD publishers (e.g. national libraries,
museums, ID providers like CrossRef, DataCite, ISBN-A etc.) got together to do
a currency service, with
?
-Original Message-
From: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com]
Sent: 21 November 2012 14:21
To: public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: Data sets of LOD
On 11/21/12 5:58 AM, Michael Hopwood wrote:
At the moment, how much of the data publication and reuse is also volunteer /
short-term
Hi Leigh,
At the risk of being repetitive, it is another fairly good use case for the VMF
architecture: http://www.doi.org/VMF/documents.html
The difference there is that you build consensus with the publisher of the
vocabulary/property at the same time as building the equivalence table, and
PS... oh, look... Listpoint has free and paid aspects too ;)
http://wiki.listpoint.co.uk/index.php?title=Does_it_cost_anything_to_use%3F
-Original Message-
From: Michael Hopwood
Sent: 26 October 2012 13:51
To: 'John Erickson'
Cc: Leigh Dodds; public-lod community
Subject: RE: Property
of it, and actually, as I said, compared to the costs of some major (and even
some minor) existing standards, the VMF's registration fees are really not that
huge.
-Original Message-
From: John Erickson [mailto:olyerick...@gmail.com]
Sent: 26 October 2012 12:50
To: Michael Hopwood
Cc: Leigh
Yes, although note Wolters Kluwer's involvement in LOD2 project:
http://lod2.eu/Partner/wkd.html
From: Dawson, Laura [mailto:laura.daw...@bowker.com]
Sent: 13 September 2012 17:59
To: Melvin Carvalho
Cc: Kingsley Idehen; public-lod@w3.org; public-...@w3.org; semantic-...@w3.org
Subject: Re:
Hmmm. This is a good point. A couple extra questions giving the dimensions of
intended use (e.g. timescale, geo, edu/public/private, rough idea of technical
platform) would make such data useful.
From: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com]
Sent: 14 September 2012 15:23
To:
It's probably worth noting on this line of thought that Unglue.It has now
started releasing published books into the CC world, as far as I can see, by
sort of buying out the copyright (anyone who understands the business model
please correct/clarify!):
https://unglue.it/
Cheers,
M
At the risk of becoming repetitious, this is the kind of business case that
Unglue.it is aiming at:
http://www.teleread.com/tag/unglue-it/ - see the comments on these threads for
some back-and-forth about paying for books for yourself, for the world, for
specific groups of users... translation
Diverse vocabulary standards I think are neither especially good or bad in
this sense, they are basically just a natural consequence of the fact that:
To describe a set of stuff in a given context you need a(nother) specific
vocabulary - this is just the way that structured, formal language
It has to be said, as well, that commercial semantic reasoning doesn't tend to
use the lightweight approach of RDF and OWL for serious applications:
http://www.rightscom.com/Portals/0/Formal_Ontology_for_Media_Rights_Transactions.pdf
-m
From: Michael Hopwood [mailto:mich...@editeur.org]
Sent
Sustainability of LOD vocabularies? Isn't there a project for that?
http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/about/
From: Bradley Allen [mailto:bradley.p.al...@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 May 2012 23:03
To: Tim Berners-Lee
Cc: Antoine Isaac; public-lod@w3.org community; rufus.poll...@okfn.org Pollock
Hi Daniel,
Have you seen RBKExplorer?
http://www.rkbexplorer.com/explorer/#display=project-{http%3A//wiki.rkbexplorer.com/id/resist}
I think Hugh Glaser has done quite a lot of work on this.
Cheers,
Michael
From: Daniel Schwabe [mailto:dschw...@inf.puc-rio.br]
Sent: 09 May 2012 17:12
To:
the problems at hand.
Those standards are specifically in favour of *interoperability* which is
surely the name of the game here...?
-Original Message-
From: Dan Brickley [mailto:dan...@danbri.org]
Sent: 26 March 2012 13:30
To: Michael Hopwood
Cc: Giovanni Tummarello; public-lod@w3.org
Hi Dan, Giovanni,
Thank you for this dialogue - I've been following this thread (or trying to!)
for some days now and wondering where is the data model in all this?.
At the point where Quite different notions of IR are bouncing around... would
it not make sense to focus on the fact that there
17 matches
Mail list logo
