On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:42:13 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 9, 2004, at 9:10 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
>
> > So, a decent solution ought to have (some of these optional):
> >
> > an ID for the taxonomy
> > an ID for the category within that
> > a name for the category ("Safety")
> > a display string for the category ("Maritime > Safety")
>
> I wonder why you need both a name and an ID; if you conflate those two,
> you have more or less PaceCategoryRevised. -Tim
Yep, I think on the Web these will usually be one and the same, either
a full URI or something that can be used to create a URI when combined
with the taxonomy ID with a # or a /.
Nice to see Walter's analysis. I'd add that RDF schemas/OWL ontologies
could be described as being digraph classifications (possibly cyclic),
though they aren't so likely to be used directly in blog
categorization in this form. A more likely use of these technologies
here through SKOS [1], to use existing taxonomies in a consistent
Web-friendly form, e.g. as in FOAF Output [2].
(Cyc and WordNet are possible examples of what could be used for a
more direct mapping, but work is under way to refactor WordNet in RDF,
possibly using SKOS as a level of concept indirection).
Walter, re. prior art - which came first, Callimachus' catalogue or
Aristotle's Categories? [3]
Cheers,
Danny.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/
[2]
http://www.wasab.dk/morten/blog/archives/2004/07/05/wordpress-plugin-foaf-output
[3] http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/categories.html
--
http://dannyayers.com
