> > I think it's equally chauvinistic for SIOC to pass up the opportunity to > be a general vocabulary for structural metadata.
There is no real opportunity to be had here. The vocabularies that have seen adoption are the ones that use a small number of terms to model a smallish subset of things in thee world, not grand schemes that attempt to model the entire world. With any technology that seeks to reshape the *World Wide* Web, large scale adoption should be a key goal. I don't see how radically increasing the number of terms (and thus increasing cognitive load for the user) works in favor of achieving this goal. If you want to model book chapters, chapter is modeled in plenty of other vocabularies. You don't need SIOC for that. -Lin -- Lin Clark DERI, NUI Galway <http://www.deri.ie/> lin-clark.com twitter.com/linclark -- 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.
