Comments on: Looking back at a successful VoCamp Oxford http://blog.semantic-web.at/2008/09/27/looking-back-at-a-successful-vocamp-oxford/ Open World Assumptions Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:31:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Matthias Samwald http://blog.semantic-web.at/2008/09/27/looking-back-at-a-successful-vocamp-oxford/#comment-1452 Matthias Samwald Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:34:52 +0000 http://blog.semantic-web.at/?p=287#comment-1452 Links to the other vocabularies and their project pages will probably be added this week. I did not take part in any discussions about file systems. Links to the other vocabularies and their project pages will probably be added this week.
I did not take part in any discussions about file systems.

]]> By: drewp http://blog.semantic-web.at/2008/09/27/looking-back-at-a-successful-vocamp-oxford/#comment-1450 drewp Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:04:05 +0000 http://blog.semantic-web.at/?p=287#comment-1450 Got links to the rest of those vocabs? And, was there any discussion about posix filesystems? I have quite a few projects with their own file/inDirectory/mtime/path/etc terms. Got links to the rest of those vocabs?

And, was there any discussion about posix filesystems? I have quite a few projects with their own file/inDirectory/mtime/path/etc terms.

]]> By: Mike Bergman http://blog.semantic-web.at/2008/09/27/looking-back-at-a-successful-vocamp-oxford/#comment-1442 Mike Bergman Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:38:57 +0000 http://blog.semantic-web.at/?p=287#comment-1442 Hi Matthias, Thanks for the write-up. The idea to test against OpenCyc and UMBEL was a good one. A domain-specific vocabulary (say, about whisky) more often will NOT have its scope (and therefore complete vocabulary) covered by a reference structure of subjects such as UMBEL. That is understood and intended. Rather, where there ARE shared concepts, those should be mapped. In that way the new vocabulary extends the reference structure and other structures or ontologies can find and relate to it (say, vocabularies for recipes or mixology or adult activities in the case of whisky). One way to think of UMBEL is as a big roadmap, to which new places (vocabularies) can be penciled in such that new visitors might find them and people can figure out how to get from place to place (say, from whisky to mixology). Also, we have tried to be at pains to make the point that subject coverage within UMBEL is by no means yet complete or fully vetted. We are purposely only at version 0.71 with more testing and input desired. Nice work at VoCamp, and thanks again for stressing the importance of large-scale reference structures to help orient us on the semantic Web. Regards, Mike Hi Matthias,

Thanks for the write-up. The idea to test against OpenCyc and UMBEL was a good one.

A domain-specific vocabulary (say, about whisky) more often will NOT have its scope (and therefore complete vocabulary) covered by a reference structure of subjects such as UMBEL. That is understood and intended.

Rather, where there ARE shared concepts, those should be mapped. In that way the new vocabulary extends the reference structure and other structures or ontologies can find and relate to it (say, vocabularies for recipes or mixology or adult activities in the case of whisky).

One way to think of UMBEL is as a big roadmap, to which new places (vocabularies) can be penciled in such that new visitors might find them and people can figure out how to get from place to place (say, from whisky to mixology).

Also, we have tried to be at pains to make the point that subject coverage within UMBEL is by no means yet complete or fully vetted. We are purposely only at version 0.71 with more testing and input desired.

Nice work at VoCamp, and thanks again for stressing the importance of large-scale reference structures to help orient us on the semantic Web.

Regards, Mike

]]>