 |
 |
On 5/4/2010 9:54 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: > BIBO, which many people seem to like, has almost 200 data > elements and classes, and is greatly lacking in some areas (e.g. maps, > music). What makes BIBO useful, in my limited experience, is that it integrates commonly used ontologies like FOAF and DCTERMS. Also, since it is an ontology for RDF description, you can supplement other vocabularies for specific cases that BIBO doesn't handle. As Ross Singer just posted as I'm writing this: On 5/4/2010 9:57 AM, Ross Singer wrote: > In RDF, you can pull in predicates from other namespaces, where the > attributes you're looking for may be defined. What's nice about this > is that works sort of like how namespaces are *supposed* to work in > XML: that is, an agent that comes along and grabs your triples will > parse the assertions from vocabularies it understands and ignore those > it doesn't. It's important that we don't look at BIBO or any other bibliographic ontology as an uber vocabulary. One of the many elegant features of RDF, IMHO, is that each specialization can contribute their own vocabulary, e.g. general vocabularies like FOAF, DCTERMS, and BIBO can be refined by more domain specific vocabularies like the music ontology[1], or ontologies for describing archival collections, sheet music, maps... In fact, having only 200 properties and classes gives BIBO an advantage: it's easy to grok and plays nicely with other vocabularies, which could do the heavy lifting for specific resources. I feel like it makes the most sense to let domain specialists create domain specific vocabularies rather than try to cover every conceivable situation in one vocabulary written by a centralized body. One last thought... BIBO in particular is developed by a community. There is an active listserv[2] and the project leads are very receptive to comment. If there is something important missing, let's help them. [1] http://musicontology.com/ [2] http://bibliontology.com/community Aaron