I also think the use case for bringing the thesaurus to the Web goes
beyond the OWL stuff Vipal describes. Essentially, by moving to RDFS
(SKOS) you get an advantage different than reasoning - the terms in your
thesaurus become URIs that other people can point to. It means that they
can use your terminologies in their applications, and links back to your terms
can be maintained (rather than "reverse engineered" by a search
engine). Tools people are playing with for SKOS (and OWL) include image
annotation, text/blog indexing, and database indexing/linking - and in those
cases, the ability to link to things outside the ontology space are crucial
(for example, imagine a lot of bloggers in the life science area using your
terms as the things they subscribe to via RSS - or imagine being able to link
your content to, for example, Nature's, by having mappings between synonyms in
each others' thesauri, with live links to the content). [VK] I agree with Jim that these would enable reuse of
thesauri concepts in a more significant way than otherwise. However, as Jim himself
points out, the use case is that of bringing the thesaurus to the Web What would be interesting
would be to bring the thesaurus to the Semantic Web, that is make
explicit the semantic structures in the thesaurus
and exploiting them using SW technologies. The catch of course is that it
requires significant upfront
investment. |
Title: RE: Ontology editor + why RDF?
- RE: Ontology editor + why RDF? Kashyap, Vipul
- RE: Ontology editor + why RDF? Jim Hendler
- RE: Ontology editor + why RDF? Kashyap, Vipul
- Re: Ontology editor + why RDF? Danny Ayers
- Re: Ontology editor + why RDF? Danny Ayers
- Re: Ontology editor + why RDF? Jim Hendler
- RE: Ontology editor + why RDF? Xiaoshu Wang
- RE: Ontology editor + why RDF? Kashyap, Vipul
- RE: Ontology editor + why RDF? Jim Hendler
- Re: Ontology editor + why RDF? Wafik Farag
- Re: Ontology editor + why RDF? John Barkley