Re: ANN: The GoodRelations Annotator: How any business can get onto the Web of Data - today!
Dear all: Apologies for the late reply.. To my knowledge, there is a pretty mature osCommerce output available at http://code.google.com/p/goodrelations-for-oscommerce/ It was developed by a student of mine. A similar approach for the Joomla/Virtuemart combo by the same student is available at http://code.google.com/p/goodrelations-for-joomla/ Best Martin Daniel O'Connor wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Daniel O'Connor daniel.ocon...@gmail.com mailto:daniel.ocon...@gmail.com wrote: Got any plans around baking this into e-commerce software? I'm about 3 hours away from adding rdf/xml output into oscommerce; and i'm sure there are lots of other platforms out there. Oh neat, already done with triplify! begin:vcard fn:Martin Hepp n:Hepp;Martin org:Bundeswehr University Munich;E-Business and Web Science Research Group adr:;;Werner-Heisenberg-Web 39;Neubiberg;;D-85577;Germany email;internet:mh...@computer.org tel;work:+49 89 6004 4217 tel;pager:skype: mfhepp url:http://www.heppnetz.de version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: ANN: The GoodRelations Annotator: How any business can get onto the Web of Data - today!
Hi all: By the way, any chance of asserting that a gr:BusinessEntity is equivalent to a foaf:Organisation or foaf:Agent? As a statement in a particular data space, I think such a link is pretty accurate and useful. However, we currently prefer to collate such heuristics-based mapping axioms in separate files instead of including them in the vocabulary specification. The reason is that some users of GoodRelations manage clean OWL DL models inside corporate applications; there, importing, or linking to, RDF schema elements has unwanted side-effects. Don't get me wrong: We are very interested and collecting practically useful link statements. But I think they should be managed in a modular fashion. Best Martin Daniel O'Connor wrote: gr:BusinessEntity rdf:ID=BusinessEntity ... owl:sameAs rdf:resource=http://www.3kbo.com/people/richard.hancock/foaf.rdf#i/ ... /gr:BusinessEntity By the way, any chance of asserting that a gr:BusinessEntity is equivalent to a foaf:Organisation or foaf:Agent? begin:vcard fn:Martin Hepp n:Hepp;Martin org:Bundeswehr University Munich;E-Business and Web Science Research Group adr:;;Werner-Heisenberg-Web 39;Neubiberg;;D-85577;Germany email;internet:mh...@computer.org tel;work:+49 89 6004 4217 tel;pager:skype: mfhepp url:http://www.heppnetz.de version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: Segment RDF on BBC Programmes
Giovanni Tummarello wrote: Bravo Kingsley. Here are my 2 lines of encouragement :-) * publish in RDFa and live happy with no content negotiation, redirect 303 to end up with 3 different URIs (/resource /data /page) for what regular folks stubbornly keep believing being the same thing. Giovanni, RDFa will not generally negate the essential separation of Name (via URI.URN-URL) and Address (via URI.URL) since Linked Data oriented triples will still contain de-referencable URIs :-) * make sure you put a semantic sitemap (takes 2 seconds) so that people can find a sparql endpoint and a dump if they want to do more with your data than just tabulator and or not be forced to recursively fetch a lot of stuff thus taking 10 seconds and 80 http requests to show e.g. the labels of what you've published on dblp ;-) Sitemap as part of the autodiscovery best practice collection is certainly fine. Note: URI.URN-URL means URN that looks like a URL, which is basically how the Linked Data meme unobtrusively splits resource Name and Address of Description of Resource via hash and slash based URI schemes. I will publish a blog post about this latter -- part of a series of posts aimed at demistifying Linked Data :-) Kingsley Giovanni On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: Richard Cyganiak wrote: On 29 Apr 2009, at 10:17, Yves Raimond wrote: We're aware of the limitations of mod_rewrite to effectively and correctly implement content-negotiation, please see note at [1] and issue at [2]. Any suggestion on this would be greatly appreciated! I've played a bit with several ways of doing it. mod_negotiation seems to be the most sensible solution. However, I did not find a way to make it run with non-static files (e.g. DESCRIBE on a SPARQL end-point). If not using that, then I think the only proper solution left is to code the content negotiation in the actual web application (that's what URISpace does, and I think that's what Pubby does). I reached exactly the same conclusion. I would recommend against the mod_rewrite hack because it is not a full implementation of content negotiation. mod_negotiation works great for static files, for everything else you should probably code your own solution. (And everyone who codes their own solution gets it wrong the first time ;-) In practice, content negotiation is quite an interoperability nightmare. One more point pro RDFa, I suppose. Richard, Should we not simply start an updataed version of LOD deployment best practices in a designated Wiki Space? We certainly need to add the RDFa perspective which isn't reflected in a lot of current material. Others: Apace is not a natural Linked Data Web Server. It is a Document Web Server. Kingsley Best, Richard Cheers! y -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Re: Segment RDF on BBC Programmes
RDFa will not generally negate the essential separation of Name (via URI.URN-URL) and Address (via URI.URL) since Linked Data oriented triples will still contain de-referencable URIs :-) if you can put the RDF and the human legible HTML version in the same address there is absolutely no reason to have separate resources. If you really want to make it clear that its not an informative resource (its not like up to today we had any evidence of this being practically useful or enabling so far, matter of fact there are evidences of the contrary [1]) then just say that in the RDF thisuri isnot aninformativeresource :-) gone with content negotiation, gone with multiple URI URN URL and distinctions among them. I hope we can agree on the principle of keeping things absolutely as easy as possible, as the only way to win (back..) interest from the actual web development circles and have adoption Giovanni [1] http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2008/02/urls-are-people-too.html
Re: Segment RDF on BBC Programmes
Giovanni Tummarello wrote: RDFa will not generally negate the essential separation of Name (via URI.URN-URL) and Address (via URI.URL) since Linked Data oriented triples will still contain de-referencable URIs :-) if you can put the RDF and the human legible HTML version in the same address there is absolutely no reason to have separate resources. If you really want to make it clear that its not an informative resource (its not like up to today we had any evidence of this being practically useful or enabling so far, matter of fact there are evidences of the contrary [1]) then just say that in the RDF thisuri isnot aninformativeresource :-) gone with content negotiation, gone with multiple URI URN URL and distinctions among them. I hope we can agree on the principle of keeping things absolutely as easy as possible, as the only way to win (back..) interest from the actual web development circles and have adoption Giovanni [1] http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2008/02/urls-are-people-too.html Giovanni, I am absolutely game for clarity and simplicity. So let's work on a document, or contribute to any that may be in development, re. injecting more RDFa into the Linked Data conversation :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
