Hi Nathan,
A good question, the way it gets answered as far as I can see depends
on what you're after.
Glad to see you're thinking linked data.
But people really do try to overthink it when it comes to ontologies,
in my opinion: ideally the best ontologies/vocabs will win -
- rubbish.
The
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
I'm finding the path to entry in to the linked open data world rather
difficult and confusing, and only for one specific reason - ontologies;
it /feels/ like there are some kind of ontology wars going on and I can
never get a
There are lots of trade-offs when designing an ontology, e.g.
specificity vs. size of the target user community - this has e.g. been
discussed in
Hepp, Martin: Possible Ontologies: How Reality Constrains the
Development of Relevant Ontologies, in: IEEE Internet Computing, Vol.
11, No. 1, pp.
Hi !
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
[...]
I think we need a Wiki, where people will post what their problem were,
what data they needed, what data they had, which ontologies they needed,
and what they did to meet these needs.
Eventually, this will evolve into a reference site with best practices
On Friday 20. November 2009 09:37:42 François Scharffe wrote:
Eventually, this will evolve into a reference site with best practices
for each problem newcomers present, and provide a launchpad for
ventures beyond what's there with minimal cost.
Sounds like www.ontologydesignpatterns.org
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Kjetil Kjernsmo kje...@kjernsmo.net wrote:
On Friday 20. November 2009 09:37:42 François Scharffe wrote:
Eventually, this will evolve into a reference site with best practices
for each problem newcomers present, and provide a launchpad for
ventures beyond
Hi Kjetil,
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
On Friday 20. November 2009 09:37:42 François Scharffe wrote:
Eventually, this will evolve into a reference site with best practices
for each problem newcomers present, and provide a launchpad for
ventures beyond what's there with minimal cost.
Sounds like
Hi Nathan --
You may be interested in the following short paper about a system that 'puts
it all together'.
www.reengineeringllc.com/A_Wiki_for_Business_Rules_in_Open_Vocabulary_Executable_English.pdf
The system is online at the same site, and shared use is free.
Apologies if you have seen
All,
I think Nathan is raising an important problem: How can the average
newcomer figure out what to use when there are so many options that it hard
to discern?
On Wednesday 18. November 2009 20:54:58 Bill Roberts wrote:
I think an attempt at standardisation on the one 'true' set of
Hi All,
Many thanks so far for the invaluable input I've been getting from the
community; I may be about to commit the cardinal sin here, but I'm a bit
concerned and only saying this with the best intentions.
Before I start, if I can be considered an early adopter then please do
disregard the
Nathan wrote:
Hi All,
Many thanks so far for the invaluable input I've been getting from the
community; I may be about to commit the cardinal sin here, but I'm a bit
concerned and only saying this with the best intentions.
Before I start, if I can be considered an early adopter then please do
Hi Nathan
I think you have to try harder than that to cause offence!
I think an attempt at standardisation on the one 'true' set of
ontologies is futile, not scalable and ultimately a dead end.
However, using suitable existing ontologies in a sensible way leads to
a kind of lingua franca
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but the primary focus for me is to use
ontologies that people will be using in SPARQL (or alternative language)
queries. Anything else appears to be a waste of time.
Multiple properties in multiple languages that appear to
Bill Roberts wrote:
Hi Nathan
I think you have to try harder than that to cause offence!
I think an attempt at standardisation on the one 'true' set of
ontologies is futile, not scalable and ultimately a dead end. However,
using suitable existing ontologies in a sensible way leads to a
14 matches
Mail list logo
