Just a remark about what we're doing in Sindice, for all who want to
be indexed properly by us.
we recursively dereference the properties that are used thus trying to
obtain a closure over the description of the properties that are used.
We also consider OWL imports.
When the recursive fetching
On 22/6/09 23:16, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Ontology modularization is
a pretty difficult task, and people use various heuristics for deciding what
to put in the subset being served for an element. There is no guarantee that
the fragment you get contains everything that
Hi Dan:
I think Alan already gave examples this morning. An ontology can contain
statements about the relationship between conceptual elements - classes,
properties, individuals - that (1) influence the result to queries but
(2) are not likely retrieved when you just dereference an element
Martin,
(moving this to LOD public as suggested)
Thanks.
General note: I am quite unhappy with a general movement in parts of the
LOD community to clash with the OWL world even when that is absolutely
unnecessary. It is just a bad engineering practice to break with
existing standards
On 23/6/09 09:33, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
Hi Dan:
I think Alan already gave examples this morning. An ontology can contain
statements about the relationship between conceptual elements - classes,
properties, individuals - that (1) influence the result to queries but
(2) are not likely
Martin,
It was not my intend to insult anybody.
Thank you.
And Michael, please be frank - there is a tendency in the LOD community
which goes along the lines of OWL and DL-minded SW research has proven
obsolete anyway, so we LOD guys and girls just pick and use the bits and
pieces we like
I've been trying to weigh up the pros and cons of these two approaches to
understand more clearly when you might want to use each. I hope that the list
members will be able to provide me with the benefit of their experience and
insight!
So the situation is that I have some information on a
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 12:37 +0100, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
Le 18/06/2009 16:46, Alexandre Passant a écrit :
I just reply to an e-mail from Toby on the topic on the commontag ml.
Since the archives are not yet public, let-me repost my point about the
mappings here.
A Tag in common
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 13:09 +0100, Toby Inkster wrote:
For my railway data http://ontologi.es/rail/ I publish static XHTML
+RDFa files (all but two of which are generated by script) and use a
combination of Apache .htaccess files and small PHP scripts to
dynamically generate other formats
Martin,
[SNIP]
As Kingsley said - deceptively simple solutions are cheap in the
beginning but can be pretty costly in the long run.
I meant: Deceptively Simple is good. While Simply Simple is bad due
to inherent architectural myopia obscured by initial illusion of
cheapness etc..
What
Just RDFa and live happy IMO. A machine doesnt care about the messy
part of the markup. The advantage of a single URL to access it too
much to be a match for anything.
It is a fact that people like us like to look at RDF directly as well.
But it should be a problem to use a firefox plugin to
Martin,
partially you could solve the problem yourself by putting the
owl:import triples in your ontology fragments e.g. the fragment, when
served, says owl import so that you're sure the ontology is used as
a whole..
would this do it? :-) fixing the problem in a single location might
be so much
Bill,
It will certainly not surprise you that I'd suggest to go for (technically
speaking) linked data with RDFa. However, we have sort of started to collect
a checklist you might want to review [1].
Anyone care to argue for one approach or the other? I suppose the answer may
well be it
Hi Kingsley,
You are of course right - I assume that, despite the terminological mess
I introduced, you agree with my line of argument; I fully acknowledge
it is heavily inspired by our San Jose sushi talk ;-)
Martin
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Martin,
[SNIP]
As Kingsley said - deceptively
All,
I just wanted to have a few elevations of mountains:
PREFIX pr: http://dbpedia.org/property/
select distinct * where
{
?uri a http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Mountain ;
http://dbpedia.org/ontology/elevation ?elev ;
pr:name ?name ;
pr:range
Thanks everyone who replied.
It seems that there's a lot of support for the RDFa route in that
(perhaps not statistically significant) sample of opinion. But to
summarise my understanding of your various bits of advice: since
there aren't currently so many applications out there
All,
As you may have noticed, AWS still haven't made the LOD cloud data sets
-- that I submitted eons ago -- public. Basically, the hold-up comes
down to discomfort with the lack of license clarity re. some of the data
sets.
Action items for all data set publishers:
1. Integrate your data
Hi all,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.comwrote:
All,
As you may have noticed, AWS still haven't made the LOD cloud data sets --
that I submitted eons ago -- public. Basically, the hold-up comes down to
discomfort with the lack of license clarity re.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Giovanni Tummarello g.tummare...@gmail.com
wrote:
Just a remark about what we're doing in Sindice, for all who want to
be indexed properly by us.
we recursively dereference the properties that are used thus trying to
obtain a closure over the description of
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
All,
As you may have noticed, AWS still haven't made the LOD cloud data sets --
that I submitted eons ago -- public. Basically, the hold-up comes down to
discomfort with the lack of license clarity re. some of
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
On 23/6/09 11:01, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
And Michael, please be frank - there is a tendency in the LOD community
which goes along the lines of OWL and DL-minded SW research has proven
obsolete anyway, so we LOD guys
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
All,
As you may have noticed, AWS still haven't made the LOD cloud data sets --
that I submitted eons ago -- public. Basically, the hold-up comes down to
discomfort with the lack of
Bill Roberts wrote:
Thanks everyone who replied.
It seems that there's a lot of support for the RDFa route in that
(perhaps not statistically significant) sample of opinion. But to
summarise my understanding of your various bits of advice: since
there aren't currently so many applications
Therefore rather than deciding for either RDFa or a content-negotiated
approach, why not do both (and provide a dump file too)
Exactly!
+1
Also:
You can provide a translation of your rdfahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDFa
+xhtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML into normal
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.comwrote:
Using licensing to ensure the data providers URIs are always preserved
delivers low cost and implicit attribution. This is what I believe CC-BY-SA
delivers. There is nothing wrong with granular attribution if
Hi all,
I understand the main lists of public datasets for the LOD project are at:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData/DataSets
http://esw.w3.org/topic/DataSetRDFDumps
Many of these datasets are on CKAN (http://www.ckan.net), which is an
open source
2009/6/24 Ian Davis li...@iandavis.com
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.comwrote:
Using licensing to ensure the data providers URIs are always preserved
delivers low cost and implicit attribution. This is what I believe CC-BY-SA
delivers. There is
On Wednesday, June 24, 2009, Peter Ansell ansell.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/24 Ian Davis li...@iandavis.com
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com
wrote:
Using licensing to ensure the data providers URIs are always preserved
delivers low cost and
I agree that both is better, but there is a catch.
As did Toby with his system, in http://t4gm.info, I serve up both
XHTML+RDFa and perform content negotiation, generating triples in the
MIME type expected by a given RDF-accepting user agent by redirecting
the given static XHTML+RDFa page through
Ian Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.com mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Using licensing to ensure the data providers URIs are always
preserved delivers low cost and implicit attribution. This is
what I
30 matches
Mail list logo
