Martin Bryan, from the SGML Centre http://www.sgml.u-net.com wrote: > The idea of describing product classifications using RDF is not > new, I would appreciate any references you could send me about this. How far has this idea gotten? Where can I read about it? > but how would you propose these definitions be used - what structures > would you see them forming a part of? Well here is my process, Martin, my working group has gathered together national agencies in Sweden to work for a common ontology for the publication of resources from the perspective of time-spenders. One of these agencies (the Swedish National tourist board) has taken this initiative to its European partners, and in the process has gained knowledge of two independent developments. 1) A CEN working group - 329, who has spent the last few years trying to develop a European standard nomenclature for tourist resources. 2). A project called IntouriSME, which has raised about 20 million Euro from DG 13 and 16, but has very little relationship to the traditional tourist orgs. This work is classed SECRET and that includes the naming conventions being developed. CEN 329 is basically semantic, whilst IntoruiSME is both semantics and syntax. Both projects are developing naming conventions, independent of each other, and so for that matter, was the Swedish national tourist board up until now. My interest here is a common ontology for the entire European Tourist industry - and btw, for culture, sport and entertainment as well. these activities are all quite related from the time-seekers POV. Now as you know, traditional Standards work is rather secretive, publication financed, stodgy and so forth. The CEN 329 work, which has been going on for 3 years!!! is more or less confidential - , and not published for public access anywhere!!! This can be a cultural shock for someone like myself, who contributes to the ISOC-IETF working process, which puts a premium on openness and consensus. But there is no WIP in ISOC-IETF for the ontology described above. There is another direction to be taken. Statistical codes, unlike (pre-Internet) standards, are available, open and free and well mapped between countries. And very important indeed, these codes are translated or are being translated into most of the worlds languages. So, I have proposed using ISIC rev 3 and CPC V1.0 as the fundamental ground work for the ontologies we are wishing to create. It is that simple. If you look at these codes, you will see that there is a considerable amount of classification already done for the terminology sectors we are concentrated on. Take a look at ISIC Rev. 3 code 9249 for example, it covers almost exactly the terms that CEN 329 is looking for. Now, I certainly do not have a mandate from the United Nations to publish all their codes (stretching far beyond ISIC and CPC) in RDF, though I am sure this work would be beneficial. I am sending a copy of this letter to some of the people at the ILO and Statistical division so that they will know about this effort. I am proposing that for now, this work be done for now under the auspices of some European agency. Since statistical codes develop very slowly, there will be plenty of time for the United Nations Statistical Division and the ILO to take notice of what we are doing and join in if they so choose. Or even more happily tell us that they have already taken care of the job and it can be found at: www.???.org Greg > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > For more information about the European Commission's > Open Information Interchange (OII) initiative contact > http://www.echo.lu/oii/en/oiistand.html > For more information about the ISIS XML/EDI Project contact > http://wwe.tieke.fi/isis-xmedil.html > >
Attachment:
Greg A FitzPatrick.vcf
Description: Binary data