<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SXSW: Semantic Web 2.0 and Scientific Publishing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/03/10/semweb2-science/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/03/10/semweb2-science/</link>
	<description>My opinions only. I do not represent any organization in this publication.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:54:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: sean</title>
		<link>http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/03/10/semweb2-science/#comment-91448</link>
		<dc:creator>sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/03/10/semweb2-science/#comment-91448</guid>
		<description>Heh- I was at this talk too.  I forget who said it, but the idea that the semantics of "This person is the auhor of such and such article" can be managed by the publishers, and the semantics of "this gene expresses this condition" can be managed by researchers was interesting.  Instead of one huge ontology for the whole shebang, the different groups (researchers and publishers) can focus on the semantics of what they individually are good at.  Seems more do-able than One Big Scientific Research Ontology.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heh- I was at this talk too.  I forget who said it, but the idea that the semantics of &#8220;This person is the auhor of such and such article&#8221; can be managed by the publishers, and the semantics of &#8220;this gene expresses this condition&#8221; can be managed by researchers was interesting.  Instead of one huge ontology for the whole shebang, the different groups (researchers and publishers) can focus on the semantics of what they individually are good at.  Seems more do-able than One Big Scientific Research Ontology.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Denny Vrandecic</title>
		<link>http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/03/10/semweb2-science/#comment-91408</link>
		<dc:creator>Denny Vrandecic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/03/10/semweb2-science/#comment-91408</guid>
		<description>Actually, we have a whole workshop devoted to that topic at the WWW in Banff, called the CKC 2007 Workshop on Social and Collaborative Construction of Structured Knowledge, find here more.

http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/ckc2007</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, we have a whole workshop devoted to that topic at the WWW in Banff, called the CKC 2007 Workshop on Social and Collaborative Construction of Structured Knowledge, find here more.</p>
<p><a href="http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/ckc2007" rel="nofollow">http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/ckc2007</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
