microdata via tags in HTML5 schema.org provides shared vocabulary
11

Bernstein et al see (saw) the future as
􏰀 less use of logic, more existing language
􏰀 ontologies learnered or enhanced automatically
A letter responding to Bernstein et al suggests
. . . Bernstein et al. seemed to neglect a key feature of formal semantics transparency. They seem comfortable with the relaxation of logic as a conceptual framework for the Semantic Web, which is typical of modern Knowledge Graphs (such as the one Google uses). But one of the consequences of such relaxation is that part of data semantics ends up being embedded in algorithms. Not only practitioners but also common users are aware that algorithms that work on Web data are embedded in only a few monolithic, private platforms that are far from open, transparent, and auditable.
12

Poirier is not a computer scientist but a cultural anthropologist
Her perspective is understanding how neat and scruffy views have evolved and the ways in which they have impact on the Semantic Web and knowledge representation on the web today.
13

Poirier quotes Bizer:
If you ask Tim, kind of everybody is shifting. But basically there’s strong deployment on the distributed data provision side, which is an integral part of the Semantic Web. There’s strong deployment on the ontology side because basically people agree on the global ontology, which is schema.org, which is not as formal. You can’t do reasoning with it … but you do some other kind of reasoning. You do more statistical reasoning, not so much based on ontology constructs. It’s more based on the data…
14

So what about Your Coursework?
It needs to be neat rather than scruffy (this is not to say scruffy is bad, just the coursework is about modelling in a formal way in OWL)
􏰀 A lot of people have asked me similar things
􏰀 There is a bit of misunderstanding about some neat things
􏰀 I’ve seen a lot of example with Classes where you have not thought: ‘what exactly are the individuals?’
􏰀 I’ve seem a lot of links between classes in diagrams that are not is-a links but are meant to be
􏰀 For example are these the same:
􏰀 The Class of novels (e.g. in a library)
􏰀 The classification ‘novel’ as one way of classifying a book
􏰀 The label “novel” in English as the name of this classification
􏰀 the relationship linking every book which is a novel to its
classification
15

Using SKOS concepts like novel you might say it’s narrower that a concept English Novelist. dbpedia has examples of this.
it’s not wrong
but don’t confuse this with Classes in OWL or Concepts in DL
Of concepts they (SKOS) say:
“The fundamental element of the SKOS vocabulary is the concept. Concepts are the units of thought ideas, meanings, or (categories of) objects and events?which underlie many knowledge organization systems. As such, concepts exist in the mind as abstract entities which are independent of the terms used to label them.”
16