Jun 15, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Jason Borro wrote:
I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme is a burden on publishers for the
sake of a handful of applications that wish to "refer to these information resources
themselves", making them "unable to talk about Web page
I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme is a
burden on publishers for the sake of a handful of applications that wish
to "refer to these information resources themselves", making them
"unable to talk about Web pages using the Web description language RDF".
What about mint
/agree with Tore. I know it's an old debate, but it's payback time for
flooding my inbox for the last week.
Can someone please give me a good use case for pedantically
disambiguating an IR and NIR? This week I've seen the following samples:
"/toucan.rdf is wrong". Why are you declaring a d
David,
Sorry for missing this one earlier. Yes indeed, OpenCyc's use of
owl:sameAs caused me problems [1].
Your proposed solution of openCyc:synsetDenotes is interesting. If your
goal is coreference, I would invite you to make use oguid:identical [2].
Hundreds of questionable (in terms of
Good explanation Frederick.
Open GUID does not make the distinction between subjects and named
entities, it leaves that up to specific ontology/data providers.
Back to the original topic of an RDFa 'about' attribute on a Wikipedia
article, an UMBEL subject concept would fit perfectly there a
c
so, i remain puzzled as to the supposed difference between
dBpedia/wikipedia, UMBEL, and now openGUID? don't these all basically
overlap, as lists of subjects/concepts? which isn't a bad thing, BTW...
best--
--cs
-Original Message-
From: Jason Borro [mailto:[EMAIL P
I was talking about tagging wikipedia articles with a subject (UMBEL or
Open GUID, e.g.)
I did see the Semantic-MediaWiki project, but that is more geared
towards specific ontologies. There was a student recently working on an
RDFa plugin for it [1], but not sure how extractable that is to
