Initiative <lrmi@googlegroups.com>
Received: by 10.66.88.200 with SMTP id bi8mr3192813pab.27.1350346180187;
        Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lrmi@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.197.72 with SMTP id is8ls20314322pbc.5.gmail; Mon, 15 Oct
 2012 17:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.86.98 with SMTP id o2mr2164837paz.29.1350346179766;
        Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.86.98 with SMTP id o2mr2164836paz.29.1350346179757;
        Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <sil.lingu...@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-da0-f44.google.com (mail-da0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id js4si4244097pbb.2.2012.10.15.17.09.39
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of sil.lingu...@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.44;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of sil.lingu...@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=sil.lingu...@gmail.com; dkim=pass header...@gmail.com
Received: by mail-da0-f44.google.com with SMTP id h15so2805539dan.31
        for <lrmi@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        bh=sLPKxXQB0U7kJo42AdSFaiP/jRZx1lmQpY+KvEq4xjo=;
        b=fi2ehQVHXwq3rTjeY0PjdZz2fRQUf40CNTV2L6DwoxPKTuJhH9Jsk4aq5NGp9I5Hqr
         i1zCD6zjJmJrixZYifWLSV3R4EqoG6eIQj6z6UsElNlNCGeqt5zlJ5sKaAN1alC71xC2
         xKLCS5lZAYC27Pqj23zAsWwf+X7lT5jDXxBiey3M+e5u34gurpVhFQzUwClwuw9qCjK7
         dfmRuCWuJss6Qei196AEPyav1pP8j/mNEPKiv9Ru4cZcoQ6N/gUDFBAaZiQZ+Rek4S86
         BXRthMYTXHUHMcRBTBB4gWksUNkDPrcDWDCCR9lc1uvaL1UJNQWY//0d/1OTZvtyEJ4M
         QnWg==
Received: by 10.68.241.133 with SMTP id wi5mr41333149pbc.48.1350346179465;
        Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <sil.lingu...@gmail.com>
Received: from [10.0.3.12] (c-67-170-164-153.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [67.170.164.153])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bv6sm9822409pab.13.2012.10.15.17.09.37
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: Adding tags from another ontology
From: Hugh Paterson III <sil.lingu...@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121015215815.GC13218@x200s>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:09:35 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4D3B1DD1-5FC5-4361-895F-B74AB2560...@gmail.com>
References: <D66C2EC5-6D2E-4057-ACC0-83D42C589...@gmail.com> <20121015215815.GC13218@x200s>
To: lrmi@googlegroups.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)

Thanks Greg, I did not know that about the Wikipedia connection.

Gold is free to use as is ISO 639-3. no fees :-)


But my question is a bit more specific than the extent to which you =
answered.=20

My questions comes around to an RDF description of a resource. My =
understanding of ontologies as implemented under RDF is that one has to =
define which ontology a descriptor token belongs.=20

How do RDF readers (like google) disambiguate subject terms.  That is if =
I have the subject term "semantics" how is the RDF reader going to know =
if I mean the Wikipedia definition, the Project Gold definition, or a =
generic LRMI subject definition?  at some point these things get embeded =
into the presentation layer as microdata right?

=20
- hugh

On Oct 15, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Greg Grossmeier wrote:

> Hello Hugh,
>=20
> Is the GOLD ontology for subjects easily reused by others without fee?
> If so, then it could be a good option for those who want to fill in =
the
> subject field with a controlled vocabulary (as you suggest).
>=20
> Much discussion on the Schema.org community list (which, to remind
> everyone, LRMI fits within Schema.org, thus inherits all of the =
aspects
> there of) has indicated that the use of Wikipedia as a controlled
> vocabulary for certain things also works well (though, obviously, not
> with the breadth and depth as some domain specific ontologies out
> there).
>=20
> Best,
>=20
> Greg
>=20
>=20
> <quote name=3D"Hugh Paterson III" date=3D"2012-10-13" time=3D"22:22:39 =
-0700">
>> I am a lurker and have been watching this list for a few months now.
>>=20
>> I have a question about enriching resources with another ontology.
>>=20
>> I am dealing with course content which is linguistic in nature and/or =
is in or about minority languages (Marked with ISO 639-3).
>>=20
>> Linguistics has an ontology called ProjectGOLD =
[http://linguistics-ontology.org/] and we have implemented ISO 639-3 as =
an ontology as well.
>>=20
>> It would seem that some of these Project GOLD Items could be used as =
subject tags, but they should also be marked as equaling terms in =
another ontology. How is that done? is that system dependent or does =
LRMI make provision for this?
>>=20
>> I was also watching the LRMI tagger app video =
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DSleh-ZGQ9mM] when I was think about =
this. We have a corporate repository (DSpace) and have an app kinda like =
tagger to implement/extract from submitters our metadata schema upon =
ingest.=20
>>=20
>> But as we consider that LRMI metadata is being presented to search =
engines. It is generally presented in the HTML text like micro-data, =
Right?  So, I am still wondering if and how these search engines will be =
able to make sense of terms (derive meaning) from other ontologies as =
they associate with LRMI terms.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> - Hugh Paterson=20
>>=20
>> UX Consultant=20
>> SIL International
>=20
> --=20
> Greg Grossmeier
> Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
> twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier