OpenLink SIOC Enhancement Suggestions (3)
All,
As I am sure you know, I believe SIOC is a great mechanism for bridging
the Web 2.0 and more traditional Semantic Web communities. Thus, we
need to be able to use SIOC and existing shared Ontologies to
unobtrusively model distributed collaborative application profiles such
as Blogs, Wikis, Discussion Forums, Aggregated Feeds (Bloglines,
TechMeme, Digg, Talk Digger) Platforms, Shared Bookmarks (del.icio.us
etc.), and other popular Web 2.0 solution profiles.
I suggest we use resurrect the deprecated sioc:type property and then
use this to link a sioc:Forum to a skos:Concept.
Property: sioc:type
OWL Type: ObjectProperty
Range: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource
We then use the skos:prefLabel property of skos:Concept to denote types
of Online Forums along the following lines:
http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace#weblog,
http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace#wiki,
http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace#feeds,
http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace#discussion etc..
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
- Login to post comments
This resource is supported by Science Foundation Ireland under grant number SFI/02/CE1/I131 (Líon) and SFI/08/CE/I1380 (Líon 2) at the Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway.
Syndicate
OpenLink SIOC Enhancement Suggestions (3)
Kingsley,
Why not use rdf:type and make weblog, wiki etc. subclasses of
sioc:Forum?
Cheers,
Richard
On 18 Dec 2006, at 19:47, kidehen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> As I am sure you know, I believe SIOC is a great mechanism for
> bridging
> the Web 2.0 and more traditional Semantic Web communities. Thus, we
> need to be able to use SIOC and existing shared Ontologies to
> unobtrusively model distributed collaborative application profiles
> such
> as Blogs, Wikis, Discussion Forums, Aggregated Feeds (Bloglines,
> TechMeme, Digg, Talk Digger) Platforms, Shared Bookmarks (del.icio.us
> etc.), and other popular Web 2.0 solution profiles.
>
> I suggest we use resurrect the deprecated sioc:type property and then
> use this to link a sioc:Forum to a skos:Concept.
>
> Property: sioc:type
> OWL Type: ObjectProperty
> Range: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource
>
> We then use the skos:prefLabel property of skos:Concept to denote
> types
> of Online Forums along the following lines:
>
> http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace#weblog,
> http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace#wiki,
> http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace#feeds,
> http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace#discussion etc..
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
OpenLink SIOC Enhancement Suggestions (3)
Hi Richard,
On 12/18/06, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
> Kingsley,
>
> Why not use rdf:type and make weblog, wiki etc. subclasses of
> sioc:Forum?
Precisely - all the tools needed to express types of forums are already there:
- rdf:type
- SIOC types module [ http://rdfs.org/sioc/types ]
The only thing that needs to be done is add forum subtypes to the types module.
Currently it only has Comment - a subclass of Post.
You could argue if subtypes of sioc:Forum should be in the main
ontology or in a separate module. The motivation for a separate module
is to keep the ontology generic enough and to have specific type
hierarchies separate. Open to suggestions how to best do it.
Speaking of being generic - some even argued that we should not have
Comment at all because comments are just Posts that are replied to
other posts.
P.S. A suggestion for implementations: In order to help reasoners (or
rather the fact that they are not yet widely used) let's do the job
for them and specify that a forum is both sioc:Forum and its
appropriate subtype (e.g. sioc_types:Weblog), even if there is a
subclass relationship between them.
Best,
Uldis
[ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
OpenLink SIOC Enhancement Suggestions (3)
Hi,
On 12/18/06, Uldis Bojars wrote: wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 12/18/06, Richard Cyganiak
> >
> > Kingsley,
> >
> > Why not use rdf:type and make weblog, wiki etc. subclasses of
> > sioc:Forum?
>
> Precisely - all the tools needed to express types of forums are already there:
> - rdf:type
> - SIOC types module [ http://rdfs.org/sioc/types ]
>
> The only thing that needs to be done is add forum subtypes to the types module.
> Currently it only has Comment - a subclass of Post.
>
I also agree with the use of subclasses of sioc:Forum to create wiki,
weblog, mailing-list ... (rather than sioc:type) than can be in the
SIOC types module.
We can also create subclasses of sioc:Post like: sioc:BlogPost,
sioc:WikiPage, sioc:EMail ... (I currently use some of them, and let a
unique sioc:Forum property).
Best,
Alex.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
OpenLink SIOC Enhancement Suggestions (3)
> I also agree with the use of subclasses of sioc:Forum to create wiki,
> weblog, mailing-list ... (rather than sioc:type) than can be in the
> SIOC types module.
Good idea! Now I can't, but tomorrow I'll write my ideas on the wiki.
Regards,
--
__ ___ _ _
\ \ / (_) |_(_)___ _ _ Sergio Fdez
\ \/\/ /| | / / / -_) '_| GNU/LiNUX User: #298803
\_/\_/ |_|_\_\_\___|_| Web: http://www.wikier.org/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
OpenLink SIOC Enhancement Suggestions (3)
I think the best thing to do in this case is to use the wiki.
I'll start with a list of proposed types and please add to this list as
appropriate.
http://wiki.sioc-project.org/index.php/TypesModule
Then we can deploy to the /sioc/types file.
J.
--
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
OpenLink SIOC Enhancement Suggestions (3)
Uldis Bojars wrote: wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 12/18/06, Richard Cyganiak
> >
> > Kingsley,
> >
> > Why not use rdf:type and make weblog, wiki etc. subclasses of
> > sioc:Forum?
>
> Precisely - all the tools needed to express types of forums are already there:
> - rdf:type
> - SIOC types module [ http://rdfs.org/sioc/types ]
>
> The only thing that needs to be done is add forum subtypes to the types module.
> Currently it only has Comment - a subclass of Post.
>
> You could argue if subtypes of sioc:Forum should be in the main
> ontology or in a separate module. The motivation for a separate module
> is to keep the ontology generic enough and to have specific type
> hierarchies separate. Open to suggestions how to best do it.
>
> Speaking of being generic - some even argued that we should not have
> Comment at all because comments are just Posts that are replied to
> other posts.
>
> P.S. A suggestion for implementations: In order to help reasoners (or
> rather the fact that they are not yet widely used) let's do the job
> for them and specify that a forum is both sioc:Forum and its
> appropriate subtype (e.g. sioc_types:Weblog), even if there is a
> subclass relationship between them.
>
> Best,
> Uldis
>
> [ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]
Richard,
Somehow (I don't know how) I completely overlooked SIOC subclasses :-(
Uldis has indicated to me that they will flesh this part of the
Ontology out so that others don't end up down my path :-)
Kingsley
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---