 |
 |
> Is it valid to re-word this as: How can I extend an RDF vocabulary if I > need to? -- Absolutely. In re-reading my response, I feel it is a little less than perfectly articulate, to say the least. Sorry for that. In any event, I can't give enough props to Adam Soroka for jumping in with the perfect email, which is why I've now referenced it twice (one here). Yours, Kevin On 09/01/2013 08:54 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > Kevin, thanks. > > Is it valid to re-word this as: How can I extend an RDF vocabulary if I > need to? > > I think the question of publishing vocabularies (as well as publishing > an extension) is part of that. I could see this extending to best > practices for "naming" (e.g. URI/IRIs), and perhaps even a bit about > documenting. > > Great topic! > kc > > > On 9/2/13 1:25 AM, Kevin Ford wrote: >> Dear Karen, >> >> I think that "how extensible RDF is" would be a very good topic. I'm >> not talking about the theoretical extensibility of RDF, but how to do >> it in a practical manner. That is, if you have a role, or some other >> relationship, for example, and you want to use it. Linked Data >> provides a facile way to assert one's own value/entity/resource so >> long as it is asserted so that others can readily learn what you mean, >> by publishing it so that it is HTTP acceesible. >> >> This issue, for me, has come up on a number of occasions, but the most >> recent convo I had about this was on the BIBFRAME listserv. I do hope >> it is OK that I trot this out here: >> >> http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1308&L=bibframe&T=0&X=1419B34D33AC66F564&P=6617 >> >> >> Yours, >> Kevin >> >> >> >> >> On 09/01/2013 12:37 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: >>> I'm thinking about training needs around linked data -- yes, that >>> includes basic concepts, but at the moment I'm wondering what specific >>> technologies or tasks people would like to learn about? Some obvious >>> examples are: how to do SPARQL queries; how to use triples in databases; >>> maybe how to use Protege (free software) [1] to create an ontology. >>> Those are just a quick shot across the bow, and from my basically >>> non-techie point of view. Please add your own. >>> >>> If you can't say it in terms of technology, it would be as good (if not >>> maybe better) to say it in terms of what you'd like to be able to do (do >>> searches, create data... ) >>> >>> This is very unscientific, but I think it's a worthwhile conversation to >>> have, and maybe can help get some ideas for training. >>> >>> kc >>> [1] http://protege.stanford.edu/ >>> >