Hi Kingsley,
don't know. In a O'Reilly about Google's RDFa support, Guha says that
they draw and plan to draw from existing vocabularies.
"And we're not going to do this all by ourselves. As it is, we are
drawing from several sources. We're drawing from microformats. We're
drawing from vCard. And there are other places that you will see. And
there's other people who know more about their topics than we could
possibly know. And we'll draw on all of these things. So to come back
and answer your question, we hope that the scope of this will be
substantially more than the scope of all the particular data types
that work today by microformats."
See http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/05/google-adds-microformat-parsin.html
Cheers
Chris
All,
Even if Google makes up their own vocabulary, so what? Is this whole
game about meshing structured data? This is simply a case of meshing
their vocabulary with other vocabularies.
btw - the UMBEL framework has existed with this sort of thing in mind
for eons. Middleware style integration isn't an ABox realm constrained
activity, you can integrate in the TBox realm, and in actuality this
is where the real magic will happen :-)
Thanks for remembering this stuff. I would suggest some more reading
about these capabilities and this mindset here: about umbel
[1][2][3][4], about the ABox / TBox split in the semweb [2]
This should gives most of the background information needed to
understand this usage of UMBEL describe by Kingsley above. Also include
all the blog posts by Kingsley that talks about the usage of UMBEL to
create their inference indexes that they (OL) apply to most of their
online demo.
[1]
http://fgiasson.com/blog/index.php/2008/09/04/exploding-dbpedias-domain-using-umbel/
[2]
http://fgiasson.com/blog/index.php/2008/08/29/umbel-as-a-coherent-framework-to-support-ontology-development/
[3]
http://fgiasson.com/blog/index.php/2008/07/16/starting-to-play-with-the-umbel-ontology/
[4] http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=454
[5] http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=470
Thanks,
Fred
