SKOS is another attempt to define a based on technocratic concepts. It has roughly the same problems as , or but remains poorly integrated with those. There is however at least one serious attempt to combine SKOS and SIOC].
"Most comments on blogs or newsgroups or mailing lists are quite forgettable, and often wrong. They are worthless media for any kind of knowledge management, but wiki (being itself based on software repositories) is more or less ideal. So the concept of an "article" should be the wiki concept of an article, and an "edit" to that article should be the most carefully studied and defined type of "post", and the idea of "discussion pages" (mediawiki) or web-threaded comment threads alongside (tikiwiki) needs to be better integrated" - , criticizing an SKOS+SIOC integration, who also says:
"Blogs are likewise interesting only because they are s so you should put RSS feeds (which are also available automatically from mediawiki to track page-"related changes" or overall "recent changes", or even particular user contributions to a given wiki) at the centre, not the "weblog" as such. A "trackback" is just an unfortunate term for a such as major s (like WIkipedia) already enforce... a stable URI is meritous in many other applications than blogs, and seems to have been the key to Wikipedia's success. There were always better wikis for any given subject, but it was Wikipedia's simple "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...NAME..." that put it at the core of people's ence habits."
"Mail is also increasingly integrated with other web-based services (witness , ) so you may have to draw some explicit line between private, shared, and public discourse. s are usually wholly public, mail usually assumed private, but there are exceptions, so deal with this somehow in a way that isn't tied to the media itself."
"I think you need also to distinguish between ing, " " or otherwise just ing something, vs. " " it as a credible " " (as one might do for a newspaper article or firsthand report). You might want to look at the form, which is easy to find references on."
"Finally you don't deal with ( , "IM", , etc.) at all nor the concept of logs for s or other s. I think this is a mistake as these media are getting important. In the long run they will often be attached to specific (internal or external) wiki articles, being debates about them, so I suggest you deal with them as a subclass of conversations about pages if you want to remain content-focused in your ontology." See also and the tool.