U] On Behalf Of Karen
Coyle
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 10:10 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] linked data recipe
Eric, if you want to leap into the linked data world in the fastest, easiest
way possible, then I suggest looking at microdata markup, e.g.
schema.o
Ethan, it looks to me like it depends on who you are and who is your
target. In the schema.org clan there is still a majority using
microdata, but my impression is that these are the online sales sites
whose primary interest is SEO. RDFa lite is moving up generally [0], yet
I haven't seen a cle
I think this is a nice list Eric. I particularly like the iterative approach.
I’m not a huge fan of #6, and #7 seems like it might be challenging from a data
synchronization perspective. But it’s still a nice list.
While I think it’s right that you don’t want to let the perfect (a complete and
On Nov 19, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Eric, if you want to leap into the linked data world in the fastest,
> easiest way possible, then I suggest looking at microdata markup, e.g.
> schema.org. [1] …
>
> [1] http://schema.org
I don’t advocate this as the fastest, easiest way pos
On Nov 19, 2013, at 9:54 AM, Aaron Rubinstein
wrote:
> I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, Karen. I would just
> add, or maybe reassure, that this does not necessarily require
> rethinking your existing metadata but how to translate that
>
Hasn't the pendulum swung back toward RDFa Lite (
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-lite/) recently? They are fairly equivalent, but
I'm not sure about all the politics involved.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Eric, if you want to leap into the linked data world in the fastest,
Eric, if you want to leap into the linked data world in the fastest,
easiest way possible, then I suggest looking at microdata markup, e.g.
schema.org.[1] Schema.org does not require you to transform your data at
all: it only requires mark-up of your online displays. This makes sense
because as
yo, i get it
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
> I don't know what your definition of "serialization" is, but I don't know
> of any where "data model" and "formatted output of a data model" are
> synonymous.
>
> RDF is a data model *not* a serialization.
>
> -Ross.
>
>
> On T
I don't know what your definition of "serialization" is, but I don't know
of any where "data model" and "formatted output of a data model" are
synonymous.
RDF is a data model *not* a serialization.
-Ross.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Ethan Gruber wrote:
> I see that serialization has a d
On Nov 19, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Eric, I think this skips a step - which is the design step in which you
> create a domain model that uses linked data as its basis. RDF is not a
> serialization; it actually may require you to re-think the basic
> structure of your metadata. Th
On Nov 19, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Robert Forkel wrote:
> while I also think this is not rocket surgery, I'd like to point out that
> trial (and potentially error) as suggested by your "go back to step #1"
> instructions is not a good solution to coming up with URIs. I think once
> published - i.e. put
I see that serialization has a different definition in computer science
than I thought it did.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
> That's still not a "serialization". It's just a similar data model.
> Pretty huge difference.
>
> -Ross.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:31 AM
That's still not a "serialization". It's just a similar data model.
Pretty huge difference.
-Ross.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Ethan Gruber wrote:
> I'm not sure that I agree that RDF is not a serialization. It really
> depends on the context of the system and intended use of the link
I'm not sure that I agree that RDF is not a serialization. It really
depends on the context of the system and intended use of the linked data.
For example, TEI is designed with a specific purpose which cannot be
replicated in RDF (at least, not very easily at all), but deriving RDF from
highly-lin
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, Karen. I would just add, or maybe
reassure, that this does not necessarily require rethinking your existing
metadata but how to translate that existing metadata into a linked data
environment. Though this might seem like a pain, in many cases it will
Eric, I think this skips a step - which is the design step in which you
create a domain model that uses linked data as its basis. RDF is not a
serialization; it actually may require you to re-think the basic
structure of your metadata. The reason for that is that it provides
capabilities that r
Hi Eric,
while I also think this is not rocket surgery, I'd like to point out that
trial (and potentially error) as suggested by your "go back to step #1"
instructions is not a good solution to coming up with URIs. I think once
published - i.e. put on a webserver - you should be able to keep the UR
It's a great start Eric. It helps me think that I can do it. Looking
forward to more.
Brian Zelip
UIUC
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
> I believe participating in the Semantic Web and providing content via the
> principles of linked data is not "rocket surgery", esp
I believe participating in the Semantic Web and providing content via the
principles of linked data is not "rocket surgery", especially for cultural
heritage institutions -- libraries, archives, and museums. Here is a simple
recipe for their participation:
1. use existing metadata standards (
19 matches
Mail list logo