[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13051274#comment-13051274
]
Rupert Westenthaler commented on STANBOL-3:
-------------------------------------------
Related to this issue this is not about RDFa vs. Microdata. It is strictly
about the schema.
Basically it is about using
* "http://schema.org/name"; instead (or in addition to)
"http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label";
* "http://schema.org/Person"; instead of "http://dbpedia.org/ontology/";
* and so on
There exists already a RDF Schema for the schema.org vocabulary (see
http://schema.rdfs.org/).
In general my impression is that the quality of the schema.org "ontology" is
much better as similar ontologies currently used for such things.
Regarding RDFa and Microdata I also have a slight preference pro RDFa.
best
Rupert
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the
> code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a
> vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one
> of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
