If something we care about is not in LOV, I think we should do everything we can to get it in there. Good call, Bridget!
Tom Elliott, Ph.D.
Associate Director for Digital Programs and Senior Research Scholar
Institute for the Study of the Ancient World (NYU)
http://isaw.nyu.edu/people/staff/tom-elliott
On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Bridget Almas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> +1 on all of Tom's responses.
>
> But, should we also consider populating http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/ with this data?
>
> Bridget
> On 07/09/2014 11:31 AM, Tom Elliott wrote:
>> Please see responses seriatim
>>
>> On Jul 9, 2014, at 6:10 AM, Gabriel Bodard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. If this list is, or could be expanded to be, a general list of
>>> vocabularies, do we need the term "RDF" in the title? (Even though
>>> many of the entries will be at least partly represented in RDF.)
>> +1 on removing RDF from the title
>>
>>> 2. Would you be willing to help us populate this list with more links
>>> to resources, standards, ontologies and other authorities?
>> yes
>>
>>> 3. If you think this would be useful (and the appropriate venue) would
>>> you like to add sections and structure to this document that you would
>>> like to see populated with more vocabularies, even if you do not know
>>> what they are yet? (I have started this task with a couple of lists of
>>> kinds of vocabulary I think would be useful—text and object data
>>> [category, material, object type], and person data [occupations,
>>> relationships].)
>> yes
>>
>>
>> Tom Elliott, Ph.D.
>> Associate Director for Digital Programs and Senior Research Scholar
>> Institute for the Study of the Ancient World (NYU)
>> http://isaw.nyu.edu/people/staff/tom-elliott
|