[foaf-dev] works relation
henry.story at bblfish.net
Fri Feb 5 21:56:29 CET 2010
Well it was a bit less than 2 years ago that we discussed this on this list:
On 5 Feb 2010, at 21:49, Story Henry wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2010, at 21:43, Danny Ayers wrote:
>> It is untidy though, but I can't think of a tidy solution - perhaps as
>> another party, treat the ontology as a named graph (an owl:Ontology no
>> less), then make third-party annotations on it? (like you might do on
>> a mailing list :)
>> Dunno, it just seems broken in principle to take a black/white
>> approach to vocabularies out there - most after all are evolving
>> anyway, bad terms being just a special case of messy data.
> Well all that will happen is that I will say it's a bad ontology to anyone who asks me, and that people should not use it - until some of the feedback given a couple of years ago is taken into account. Or perhaps I could be shown to be wrong.
> But that is a one page ontology. If we can't be critical at that level anymore then we are just setting ourselves up for being dismissed in most places.
> We need many of these relationships. Perhaps Ian could just fix some of these and I'd be happy to support it.
> foaf-dev mailing list
> foaf-dev at lists.foaf-project.org
More information about the foaf-dev