> 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/
>>>
>