Hugh Glaser wrote:
I agree with Richard and think I also agree with Matthias.
We do need to have nice publishing of our Linked Data.
But I really don't see why it should be the publisher of the Linked Data
that (yet again) bears the brunt of the work.
Exactly!
Linked Data is about separation of:
- identity
- storage
- representation
- access
- presentation
This is the heart of the matter, and the sooner we internalize it the
sooner we get more done, across the community at large.
And of course they are likely to do a less than great job, not being UI
specialists.
Not being specialist, or even when capable, simply not top priority.
They are better spending their time doing what they are good at - publishing
LD.
What they are good at, or what works best for their strategic priorities
etc.. Again we have heterogeneity here also :-)
I almost use zitgist as the standard html publisher of my LD (and certainly
link to it), and I am sure that a greater effort to provide top quality
generic browsers that do the simple things well would obviate the need for
me to provide anything of my own (other than the metametadata to inform the
rendering).
There are related technologies such as fresnel that could inform the process
(we publish fresnel descriptions for many our Things).
It's time we had more specialists in LD, eg people who specialise in:
publishing LD;
defining ontologies;
identifying linkage;
consuming LD.
Yes.
Heterogeneity of interests, world views, and skill sets, are data
access realities that Linked Data brings to the fore :-)
Kingsley
Best
Hugh
On 15/09/2009 12:46, "Richard Cyganiak" <rich...@cyganiak.de> wrote:
Hi Matthias,
Please allow me to present a contrarian argument.
First, there are some datasets that combine linked data output with a
traditional website, e.g., by embedding some RDFa markup. Of course,
in that case, all the rules of good web design and information
presentation still apply, and the site has to first and foremost
fulfill the visitor's information needs in order to be successful.
That's self-evident and not what we are talking about here.
Most linked data is different. The main purpose is not to create a web
site where visitors go to look up stuff. The main purpose is to
publish data in a re-usable way, in order to allow repurposing of the
data in new applications.
In that case, the "audience" for the human-readable versions of the
RDF data is *not* a visitor that came to the site while googling for
some bit of information. It's more likely to be a data analyst, mashup
developer, or integration engineer. So what I suggest is to think of
these pages not as something that end users see, but rather as
something akin to Javadoc. Javadoc pages are auto-generated pages that
describe a public interface of your system. Linked data pages are the
same, but rather than a Java API, they describe your URI space. And
unlike Javadoc, they are directly connected to the documented
artifacts (URIs).
I think that the pages should mostly answer the following questions:
What concept is identified? What *exactly* is the URI of this concept
(careful with /html or #this at the end)? Who curates this identifier?
Can I trust it to be stable? Most linked data pages actually do a
fairly decent job at answering these.
Every data publisher has limited resources, and spending them on
prettifying the HTML views is very low-impact. It's much more
important to increase data quality, publish more data, improve other
documentation, and create compelling demos/apps on top of the data.
The "namespace documentation" is usually good enough, and the
geekiness of the pages actually helps to drive home the point that
it's about *re-using this data elsewhere*, rather than looking at the
data in the boring old web browser.
That being said, of course nicer-looking pages that present
information in a more useful way are of course always better, but
that's a somewhat secondary problem in the linked data context.
Best,
Richard
On 15 Sep 2009, at 10:08, Matthias Samwald wrote:
A central idea of linked data is, in my understanding, that every
resource has not only a HTTP - resolvable RDF description of itself,
but also a human-friendly rendering that can be viewed in a web
browser. With the increasing popularity of RDFa, the URIs of these
resources are not only hidden away in triplestores, but become
increasingly exposed on web pages. People want to click on them,
and, hopefully, not all of these people come from the core community
of RDF enthusiasts.
This means that the HTML rendering of linked data resources might
need to look a bit sexier than it does today. I dare to say that the
Pubby-esque rendering of DBpedia pages such as
http://dbpedia.org/page/Primary_motor_cortex
is helpful to get a quick overview of the RDF triples about this
resource, but non-RDF-enthusiasts would not find it very inviting.
This could be improved by changes in the layout, and possibly a
manually curated ordering of properties. For example,
http://d.opencalais.com/er/company/ralg-tr1r/f8a13a13-8dbc-3d7e-82b6-1d796847
6cae.html
definitely looks more inviting than the typical DBpedia page (albeit
still a bit sterile).
In the case of DBpedia, it might be better to expose the excellent
human-readable Wikipedia page for each resource, plus a prominently
positioned 'show raw data' tab at the top. For other linked data
resources that are not derived from existing human-friendly web
pages, a few stylistic changes (ala OpenCalais) already might
improve the situation a lot.
Note that this comment is not intended to be a criticism of DBpedia,
but of all Linked Data resources that expose HTML descriptions of
resources. DBpedia is just the most popular example.
Cheers,
Matthias Samwald
DERI Galway, Ireland
http://deri.ie/
Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution & Cognition Research, Austria
http://kli.ac.at/
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ay...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:03 AM
To: <public-lod@w3.org>
Subject: dbpedia not very visible, nor fun
It seems I have a Wikipedia page in my name (ok, I only did fact-
check
edits, ok!?). So tonight I went looking for the corresponding
triples,
looking for my ultimate URI...
Google "dbpedia" => front page, with news
on the list on the left is "Online Access"
what do you get?
[[
The DBpedia data set can be accessed online via a SPARQL query
endpoint and as Linked Data.
Contents
1. Querying DBpedia
1.1. Public SPARQL Endpoint
1.2. Public Faceted Web Service Interface
1.3. Example queries displayed with the Berlin SNORQL query explorer
1.4. Examples rendering DBpedia Data with Google Map
1.5. Example displaying DBpedia Data with Exhibit
1.6. Example displaying DBpedia Data with gFacet
2. Linked Data
2.1. Background
2.2. The DBpedia Linked Data Interface
2.3. Sample Resources
2.4. Sample Views of 2 Sample DBpedia Resources
3. Semantic Web Crawling Sitemap
]]
Yeah. Unless you're a triplehead none of these will mean a thing.
Even
then it's not obvious.
Could someone please stick something more rewarding near the top! I
don't know, maybe a Google-esque text entry form field for a regex on
the SPARQL. Anything but blurb.
Even being relatively familiar with the tech, I still haven't a clue
how to take my little query (do I have a URI here?) forward.
Presentation please.
Cheers,
Danny.
--
http://danny.ayers.name
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
