On 11/18/2010 7:55 AM, Bob Ferris wrote:
I'm not sure, but I guess such a type isn't in the scope of SIOC.
However, the Bibliographic Ontology[1] has a slideshow concept[2],
maybe this would fit your requirements.
I used to do digital library work and I was appalled how much many
librarians, particularly those who controlled the purse strings, had a
disdain for social media and the interactive space. This is a lot of
the reason why I don't do digital library work now.
I think it's equally chauvinistic for SIOC to pass up the
opportunity to be a general vocabulary for structural metadata. For
instance, you could model the Bible, a play, or PhD thesis as a set
of containers and items. Why not have types like "Chapter", "Act",
that would let us have a shared vocabulary for describing this stuff.
When it comes down to it, there's no clear line between "old
school" and "social". For instance, arxiv.org might be less "social"
than Facebook, and it's filled with stodgy old physics papers, but it
uses relationship networks as part of the curation process and supports
trackbacks. Annotation of arxiv.org with SIOC-like structural metadata
would certainly be useful.
Or consider a site like
http://spoonriveranthology.net/spoon/river/view/A_D_Blood
This site is grounded in literature that's old enough to be in the
public domain, but it's "social" in the sense that it has a
MessageBoard attached to every poem.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en.
