> > John McClure wrote: > "Nadja conflated our asking about ISO Topic Maps as a base design standard > with incorporating ALL ISO STANDARDS EVER PUBLISHED into the wikidata > database" > > > OK what I have sofar understood is that the ISO has not (yet) published much > semantically structured content, in particular John how do you know that > their publications are topic maps? Because there exists a ISO Topic Map > metamodel? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitopics > (here another link: http://www.topicmaps.org/standards/) > I guess there could also be a ISO RDF metamodel....although this would > probably rather be a ISO W3C RDF metamodel :O > that is RDF could be an ISO standard. That is I currently dont see anything > which speaks against this or is is it already? > > Moreover I am not in favor of topic maps, as explained earlier and as I had > understood Wikidata wanted to use RDF and JSON but may > wikidata people have changed their mind in the meantime and in the end one > can probably work with these topic maps somewhat similar as one can work with > RDF that is I think it may just be quite a bit more messy moreover my > impression is that there is more RDF linked data in the cloud > (see e.g. http://linkeddata.org/) than topic maps (http://www.topicmaps.org/) > but I may be wrong. > > moreover I didn't say to use ALL ISO STANDARDS EVER PUBLISHED but suggested > to use these eventually as a guideline: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/576 > > this doesnt exclude that one could use in the end all ISO standards ever > published, but one could do so incrementally. > > so regarding Denny Vrandecics remark: > > "Right now I am slightly confused about what your question is. Can you > rephrase it and ask again? (The reference to "previous email" and > links to the archive leave me merely more confused)." > > I restate the questions of my posting: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/576 > with a slightly different wording > > Is it planned by the Wikidata team that someone phones these people in > Geneva and asks wether wikidata could at least base its ontology (here I mean > in particular the overall classification scheme, like a hammer is a tool > a.s.o) on > the ISO Standard > (eventually by purchasing this right) > phone number: http://www.iso.org/iso/copyright.htm > (in that way one would eventually not use their explicit texts and formats > but could use at least their > structural outline) ? > > side remark: In particular I still don't see that Wikidata may not run into > legal issues with the ISO. > > or simply: If the ISO has an IP protection on the classification "a hammer is > a tool" > > and if wikidata uses the same classification (because it is more or less the > only one which makes sense) > > then wikidata may be doomed, bailiffs will come and carry your nice new > chairs out of your office in schoeneberg > and so on.... > (correction: the bailiffs would bring someone who carries...)
> next questions: > > Is there some rich sponsor who could buy their RDF classification (or topic > map classification..?) and > make it openly accessible? Whats the ISO opinion on that did someone check? > > > Mr. Denny Vrandecic If you still don't understand these questions then please > tell me exactly what you do not understand like > which sentence, which word etc. > > nad >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
