[doap-interest] Some new terms for your consideration

[Stuart Yeates]

Edd Dumbill wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2007, at 14:15, Stuart Yeates wrote:
> 
>> I find it hard to believe that someone hasn't already specified this
>> somewhere in an RDF vocabulary, in which case we should borrow it
>> from there, rather than redefine it.
> 
> I'll respond in detail later, but this point touches on a philosophical
> difference between us.

I don't believe that there is a philosophical difference, merely one
of implementation.

> One of the goals of DOAP is to be as easy to write as possible for non
> RDFers. This means for me letting the computer do the heavy lifting.

I agree that making DOAP as easy to write for newbies is important.

> So, for the most part I want all the terms to be in the DOAP namespace,
> even if the DOAP schema has to say that the two terms are equivalent.

What I suggest is that in defining DOAP tags we use OWL:sameAs to
point to other schemas / namespaces.

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#sameAs-def

We can then use whatever tags from whatever namespaces we like and
have them appear syntactically as part of DOAP but semantically as
part of the namespace were borrowing from.

As I understand it, it should also be very simple to write a a pair
of XSLT stylesheets to transform to/from DOAP/foreign namespaces.

cheers
stuart

-- 
OSS Watch: http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/