Quoting Tony Linde <Tony.Linde-at-leicester.ac.uk>:
> I think the essence of the discussion is that we do not want a token-based,
> UCD-like vocabulary. We want one that conforms to W3C standards: the rest of
> the discussion is about the question above. Tokens are irrelevant to
> discussions of vocabularies AND ontologies.
My modest opinion is that the discussion of vocabularies AND
ontologies, of SKOS or OWL could be very important if related to the
right requirements. If I remember correctly you were asking for new
requirements few posts ago. I still haven't seen that.
Let's convince bike riders that they need much better than a bicycle,
because VO users could do such and such marvellous thinks if they use
SKOR or OWL to label their data.
On the other hand, I think that the discussion of vocabularies AND
ontologies, of SKOS or OWL, is perfectly irrelevant to the present
user requirements.
And the draft is a (perfectible) response to those.
Andrea
Andrea Preite Martinez andrea.preitemartinez-at-iasf-roma.inaf.it
IASF Tel.IASF:+39.06.4993.4641
Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Tel.CDS :+33.3.90242452
I-00133 Roma Cell. :+39.320.43.15.383
Skype :andrea.preite.martinez
===================================================================================
Received on 2007-09-28Z09:20:49