Sorry, I meant to respond publicly to Olivier...
Le mercredi 28 avril 2010 à 09:33 -0400, Dave a écrit : > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Olivier Berger > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le mardi 27 avril 2010 à 12:35 -0400, Steve K Speicher a écrit : > >> The CM workgroup has defined a resource model for Discussions and > >> Comments see: http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmComments > >> > > Sorry I haven't kept up with the ongoing works in Cm recently and didn't > > raise this earlier. > > > >> This appears to be very applicable to many domains. I'd propose we > >> move this to Core spec/guidance and it live in the core namespace. > >> Any objections? > > > > May I suggest to adopt more generally used/popular Ontology for these > > like SIOC [0], as is done for DC for other "common" properties ? > > Is SIOC really popular or even generally used? I've been aware of SIOC > for a number of years now and considered supporting it in Apache > Roller, but it never seemed to have much traction I'm not completely sure, and it probably depends what mesure mechanism would be used, which environments, etc. But as far as I know, speaking about RDF ontologies, it seems to me. http://sioc-project.org/blog and their tales from the SIOCosphere will probably give more details... unless it's shameless marketing ;) > -- and it reinvents > Atom format, which does not really seem like a good thing. Unless that Atom is no XML/RDF :-( And I believe RDF is a very doog design decision for OSLC (let aside collections that use the non-RDF Atom XML ;). > > Have any major social software sites or products adopted it yet? I see > that the SIOC project has developed plugins for some major software > packages, but I don't see signs of real adoption in Wordpress.com, > Typepad.com, Blogger.com, etc. Well the same stands for the Semantic Web as a whole in any case. > > Regardless of popularity, adopting properties from SIOC may still be a > good idea. > It will nevertheless be more popular than OSLC ;) > > > SIOC already pretty well defines a lot of posts, messages, comments and > > likes, and already is quite used in the Semantic Web applications (blog > > tools, etc.). > > What specific SIOC properties would you propose that we use to model comments? sioc:Post mainly ... see http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/#sec-overview and its example. As you may notice in the EvoOnt BOM Ontology [0] the bom:Issues were inheriting from a sioc:Thread, i.e. an Issue / Change Request could as well be the starting point of a conversation. Same would probably hold for any Resource that users may discuss/comment, etc. Such inheritence design decision would probably be good for OSLC too. > > > > I'm not sure it's really ALM specific to model comments and > > conversations, so I wouldn't think it worth reimplementing as part of > > OSLC, which should focus primarily to real domain-specific concepts. > > This is true. Then again, maybe we don't need a full distributed, > threaded, etc. conversation model -- we're just after simple flat > comments and that's what Steve has proposed using standard properties > except for oslc_cm:body and oslc_cm:inReplyTo. Hmmm... it it needs to fit any tool (thinking about the various different ways bugtrackers manage bug discussions for -CM here), then an existing model that already seems to fit popular applications would probably be useful... even if more difficult to implement than a simple one, but it will have less shortcomings from the start (assuming that SIOC is full-featured in my reasoning). > > - Dave Hope this helps. Best regards, [0]: http://baetle.googlecode.com/svn/evoont/trunk/evoont.png -- Olivier BERGER <[email protected]> http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)
