Indeed there is plenty of good stuff going on in the cultural domain and in many ways it is the seminal moment for our community. SPARQL is a good tool to expose data via SPARQL endpoints. And even in a LD conversation the CIDOC CRM is a good orientation and useful vocabulary. SPARQL and the Semantic Web W3C standards will evolve.
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Dominic Oldman <[email protected]> wrote: > Marco, > > I do understand the concern regarding winning over hearts and minds > which has been difficult. I think the best way is to provide good sites > and applications which do the things that museum's have wanted to do for > a long time. We have CLAROS and other projects and I think there will be > some very interesting practical developments (we are working on cultural > data harmonisation and federation) over the summer which will create > more interest, momentum and some new museum SPARQL Endpoints! > > D > > > > > Dominic Oldman > Deputy Head of IS > IS Development Manager > ResearchSpace Principal Investigator > British Museum > +44 (0)20 73238796 > +44 (0)7980 865309 > www.BritishMuseum.org > www.ResearchSpace.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marco Neumann [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 24 May 2012 10:59 > To: Dominic Oldman > Cc: crm-sig > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] problem of formulating queries is SPARQL it has > transferred the old relational paradigm onto the graph structure? > > Dominic, Sebastian, > > I am certainly in favor of a discussion and the development of easy to > use query forms but that said I am currently equally in favor of > SPARQL to query RDF data stores. > > Higher level abstractions, BTW any app on top of SPARQL that is, are > highly desirable. But knowing our "clients" in cultural heritage > organizations an unqualified statement such as the one made above in > the paper will further to hamper adoption, I would think. It's like > critizing SPARQL as the wrong choice for FOL reasoning tasks which are > not it's primary intended use case. Though SPARQL update is actually a > very efficient tool to approximate the semantics of such goals. > > Marco > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Dominic Oldman > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Marco, >> >> As Sebastian says, we have to use SPARQL. However, just because it is >> the W3C standard doesn't mean you can't criticise it. However, just > like >> with SQL we are all looking at ways to help museum practitioners (does >> this include our curators undertaking digital research projects) > explore >> data effectively, transparently and with reproducibility, and making > use >> of the technology with something additional to the SPARQL Endpoint > (this >> lack of additional tools perhaps explaining lack of take up). >> >> The ICOM statement, >> >> "Alternative Proposal for an ICOM-CIDOC Resolution on URIs for Museum >> Objects / Linked Open Data", is more high level statement and the >> statement that we are currently being asked to agree. It doesn't > mention >> SPARQL. >> >> Best, >> >> Dominic >> >> Dominic Oldman >> Deputy Head of IS >> IS Development Manager >> ResearchSpace Principal Investigator >> British Museum >> +44 (0)20 73238796 >> +44 (0)7980 865309 >> www.BritishMuseum.org >> www.ResearchSpace.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Marco Neumann >> Sent: 24 May 2012 10:04 >> To: crm-sig >> Subject: [Crm-sig] problem of formulating queries is SPARQL it has >> transferred the old relational paradigm onto the graph structure? >> >> Hi Martin et al >> >> I have just learned about this submission to Museums and the Web. The >> authors make the following statement: >> >> "Last but not least, another problem of formulating queries is SPARQL >> (SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language). Most favored by information >> technology (IT) experts, it has transferred the old relational >> paradigm onto the graph structure of the Semantic Web, creating an >> incredibly complex system, even for specialists. In our applications, >> no IT expert was able to verify that a SPARQL query of the kind we >> present in this paper will yield the results intended by a domain >> expert simply by reading it." * >> >> * >> A New Framework for Querying Semantic Networks - Museums and the Web >> 2012 >> > http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2012/papers/a_new_framework_for_queryi >> ng_semantic_networks >> >> I find this to be a misleading statement by the authors since SPARQL >> is the recommendation by W3C to query RDF data. Would you not >> recommend SPARQL to museum practitioners to query RDF data? >> >> Regards, >> Marco >> >> >> >> --- >> Marco Neumann >> KONA >> >> Join us at SemTech Biz in San Francisco June 3-7 2012 and save 15% >> with the lotico community discount code 'STMN' >> http://www.lotico.com/evt/SemTechSF2012/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > > -- > > > --- > Marco Neumann > KONA > > Join us at SemTech Biz in San Francisco June 3-7 2012 and save 15% > with the lotico community discount code 'STMN' > http://www.lotico.com/evt/SemTechSF2012/ -- --- Marco Neumann KONA Join us at SemTech Biz in San Francisco June 3-7 2012 and save 15% with the lotico community discount code 'STMN' http://www.lotico.com/evt/SemTechSF2012/
