There is also type properties (with a measure of their frequency
extracted from Sindice dataset):
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type (123,994,777)
http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema/type (61,202,581)
http://ogp.me/ns#type (17,184,227)
http://opengraph.org/schema/type (2,443,773)
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/type (11,367,218)
http://dbpedia.org/property/type (120,044)
http://dbpedia.org/ontology/type (65,796)
--
Renaud Delbru
On 20/06/12 20:08, Hugh Glaser wrote:
Yes.
I think it is meant to happen at the consumer side.
The consumer initialises their store with appropriate equivalences and
sub-thingies for their purposes.
If you are building an app that expects only one of these, then you aren't
really building a Semantic Web app.
And ideally the app will extend the set as it finds equivalence stuff in the
wild.
By the way, we also have (at least)
rdfs.'comment', dbpedia.'abstract', dc.'description', dcterms.'description',
core.'overview', jisc.'description', resex.'detailed-description'
when the system is trying to pick up something to show as a description of what
I am looking at.
I realise I need to update the list :-)
I'll probably add your suggestions as well.
and I have been trying to work if I want fb: as well.
Best
On 20 Jun 2012, at 19:52, Aidan Hogan wrote:
On 20/06/2012 18:58, Barry Norton wrote:
Does the fact that Web users now need to mark up their pages with
*og:description*, *schema:description* /and/ *twitter:description* not
make anyone in those communities think that maybe /this/ one had a point
in the first place?
And that maybe this proliferation is actually /harder /to manage than
dealing with (shock horror) multiple namespaces?
Did someone say reasoning?!
Cheers,
Aidan
P.S.,
http://vimeo.com/28667500
http://vimeo.com/28667555
