Thanks Antoine, Bernard; we looked into several related proposals and
approaches and we are glad for your pointers. Yes, we mention LOV/VOAF
in the editorial.
I just added the links you provided as comments to the original blog
article [1] to help us keep track of them and make them easier available
to the community.
It is interesting to note that we focused more on the actual *use*. As
editors of SWJ we thought that this is most likely the best point for us
to push the issue. This way we can target the linked data descriptions
and ontology descriptions paper categories at the same time [2].
Cheers,
Krzysztof/Jano
[1]
http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/blog/encouraging-five-star-linked-data-vocabulary-use-semantic-web-journal
[2] http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/authors#types
On 04/11/2014 03:46 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
It has some connections with something I wrote 4 years ago:
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-596/paper-12.pdf
(it's just 5 pages LNCS style)
AZ.
Le 11/04/2014 03:45, Pascal Hitzler a écrit :
An opinion piece re. linked data quality and reusability:
http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/five-stars-linked-data-vocabulary-use
(Semantic Web journal)
All comments and feedback welcome.
Best Regards,
Pascal.
--
Krzysztof Janowicz
Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
5806 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
Email: j...@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
