Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
Hello Kingsley Idehen, On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 05:32:00PM -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: We don't need a central repository of anything. Linked Data is supposed to be about enhancing serendipitous discovery of relevant things. Serendipitous discovery ? I guess you are not talking about generating random URLs to look if they access something interesting. So probably you mean something like a SPARQL query using squin.org. It is quite obvious that this only works if every URI dereferences to a complete list of relevant links for this URI. Sounds like a central list of LOD apps. Centralization doesn't scale, that's Web 101. Deactivate lod.openlinksw.com - that's web 101. Regards, Michael Brunnbauer -- ++ Michael Brunnbauer ++ netEstate GmbH ++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a ++ 81379 München ++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80 ++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 ++ E-Mail bru...@netestate.de ++ http://www.netestate.de/ ++ ++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München) ++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342 ++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer ++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel pgpbMHLx8xRBx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
There may be a number of reasons for creating a central list and I am sure there are others. In this case I wasn't suggesting it as a bureaucratic and technical exercise. My reason for suggesting it was for the following. 1. It is a chance to celebrate and highlight progress in making RDF and linked data mainstream and available to general users of the Web. 2. It shows that we are not just focused on highly technical and very detailed definitions but on the ultimate outcomes of the great work that we all do. 3. It gives us a chance to discuss some of the real difficulties that we have moving from manipulating and processing RDF creating sustainable and generally beneficial applications and to help each other in this endeavour. 4. It provides an opportunity to show that we are a forward looking and positive group with a real vision for linked data. 5. It shows that we are a serious and professional group made up of experts. i.e. We have some requirements - We think they could be only achieved with linked data -, this is what we are doing and where we are - it showsthere is a real need for linked data within this sector - it shows there is a real need to linked data applications generally - I could do with some constructive advice on how to go about achieving it from the public LOD group - The public LOD group is a primary source of constructive advice on delivering linked data outcomes.. That's all. How about it? Dominic
Re: List membership - more women
Great! Are they actively on this list? Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
Re: List membership - more women
Excerpts from Dominic Oldman's message of 2013-06-24 07:50:58 +: Just a quick aside - I have noticed that I haven't seen any posts from women members. Is this because there aren't any, or very few? I was just wondering why that was and how we could individually, and as a group, encourage more women to contribute. I think that the list would benefit greatly from this. excellent suggestion! thank you :)
Re: List membership - more women
, it actually feels strange talking just because I am a woman ... but here I am if that is of any comfort :) Muriel btw. I occasionally answer (most of the time off list probably). And I do not feel awkward doing so IF I feel I have something to say. So do not feel guilty :) On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:36 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ perpetual-trip...@wwelves.org wrote: Excerpts from Dominic Oldman's message of 2013-06-24 07:50:58 +: Just a quick aside - I have noticed that I haven't seen any posts from women members. Is this because there aren't any, or very few? I was just wondering why that was and how we could individually, and as a group, encourage more women to contribute. I think that the list would benefit greatly from this. excellent suggestion! thank you :)
Re: List membership - more women
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Isabelle Augenstein i.augenst...@sheffield.ac.uk wrote: - Overall, most discussions on the list seem to be rather philosophical (What is Linked Data? Does Linked Data require RDF?), which are not the kind of discussions I was hoping for when I joined the list in the first place Amen. This is why I think Email is still an ancient technology for these sort of discussions. If we had HackerNews or Reddit sort of discussions (with karma and voting) we could perhaps filter out unnecessary dialogues.
Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
On 6/23/2013 12:16 PM, Barry Norton wrote: Dominic, I think this is a great idea - the W3C lists suffer both from senescence and fatigue (i.e., they're out-of-date and seem not to get refreshed with new examples). May I be presumptuous enough to offer to help/steal from the EUCLID project, where we're already compiling such a list (and ResearchSpace is already on it ;) )? Barry Hi Barry, indeed in EUCLID we are compiling such a list for training purposes, and we are very happy to see other people sharing our interests (thanks, @Dominic). Having read through the discussion threads on this mailing list from the past week or so, my suggestion would be to discuss the next steps offline together with the rest of the EUCLID team. Once we have a first compilation of use cases that illustrate, independently or in combination, the range of applications empowered by Linked Data, we will share our thoughts with the public-lod list to collect feedback and further examples. Elena On 23/06/13 11:28, Dominic Oldman wrote: As a result of the other thread about applications (which should continue with some more and varied views) I would like to suggest that this list starts to compile a list of use cases for linked data. We should start to list end user applications from as many different domains as possible that could never be implemented without RDF as they rely on linked data and semantic harmonisation, and would greatly benefit end users. I am happy to compile the suggestions made. Dominic Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -- Dr. Elena Simperl Senior Lecturer Web and Internet Science Group Electronics Computer Science University of Southampton email: e.simp...@soton.ac.uk twitter: https://twitter.com/esimperl telefone: +44 2380 59 7692 mobile: +44 7900 666705
Re: List membership - more women
On 24 June 2013 10:34, Isabelle Augenstein i.augenst...@sheffield.ac.ukwrote: Hi Dominic, I only joined the list a few months ago, so my observations might be inaccurate, but - Overall, most discussions on the list seem to be rather philosophical (What is Linked Data? Does Linked Data require RDF?), which are not the kind of discussions I was hoping for when I joined the list in the first place Quite. A lot of the initial enthusiasm about Linked Data was associated with a despair some felt about the Semantic Web slogan, which had got itself associated with overly-academic, complex-KR-obsessed and other unworldy concerns. I suspect this sort of churn is a natural part of the lifecycle of standards work; some are starting to feel about public-lod the same way. - My guess would be that the ratio between subscribers and people posting on the list is rather low in general in addition to few women being subscribed to the list (But I bet we can get some statistics for that?) There are just over 1000 subscribers to the list (no gender figures available for those). You can see from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/author.html who the most vocal participants are. Dan
Re: List membership - more women
Hi all, My two other female colleagues and me are also subscribed to the list and have posted occasionally about our projects when it requires feedback from the community...however we haven't actively taken part in discussions. But, thanks for making us heard ;) Thanks. Regards, Amrapali Zaveri http://aksw.org/AmrapaliZaveri On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Isabelle Augenstein i.augenst...@sheffield.ac.uk wrote: I've had a quick look at posts from women in general and it seems to me that there are a few women posting to the list, and the ones that do mostly post announcements (for conferences, workshops etc.), but don't get involved in discussions. I don't have a solution or explanation, but since Dominic pointed it out, three women have posted to the list (including me), so I guess we're already making progress? ;-) Isabelle On 24/06/2013 10:14, Dan Brickley wrote: - My guess would be that the ratio between subscribers and people posting on the list is rather low in general in addition to few women being subscribed to the list (But I bet we can get some statistics for that?) There are just over 1000 subscribers to the list (no gender figures available for those). You can see from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/author.html who the most vocal participants are. Dan
Re: List membership - more women
I'm also female and fairly new to the list... I joined the list because I've recently started work on the Linking Web data for Education (LinkedUp project) [http://linkedup-project.eu] which aims to encourage use of linked and open data in particular by educational institutions and organizations. My background isn't technical but I do have a history of working with technical people. I suppose my interest lies in moving linked data use beyond the usual suspects to the wider community. I've really enjoyed the list discussions I've read so far, but it does sometimes feel a little like an echo chamber, and there are a lot of assumptions about 'what people out there know/or should know'. For example I really like Dominic's idea of compiling a list of end user applications use cases. These type of lists can be hugely useful for those new to the area of linked data, and it's actually something we are working on in my project as part of the LinkedUp Challenge [http://linkedup-challenge.org] - a competition looking for interesting and innovative tools and applications that analyse and/or integrate open web data for educational purposes. Yet Kingsely commented We don't need a central repository of anything, assuming we actually know what Linked Data is really about. Sometimes it helps to take a step back. Anyway I'm keen to participate in more conversations in the future and you sound like a friendly list, so I'm hoping there will be no judgements on my level of technical knowledge ;-) After all, the aim is surely to get more people interested in creating and using linked data, and that sometimes requires opening up to new people who don't fully know the etymology or meaning of terms. Marieke -- Marieke Guy Project Coordinator | skype: mariekeguy | tel: 44 (0) 1285 885681 | @mariekeguy http://twitter.com/mariekeguy The Open Knowledge Foundation %E2%80%9Dhttp://okfn.org/%E2%80%9D /Empowering through Open Knowledge/ http://okfn.org/ %E2%80%9Dhttp://okfn.org/%E2%80%9D | @okfn http://twitter.com/okfn| OKF on Facebook %E2%80%9Dhttps://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork%E2%80%9D | Blog %E2%80%9Dhttp://blog.okfn.org%E2%80%9D | Newsletter %E2%80%9Dhttp://okfn.org/about/newsletter/%E2%80%9D http://remoteworker.wordpress.com %E2%80%9Dhttp://remoteworker.wordpress.com%E2%80%9D On 24/06/2013 10:38, Kate Byrne wrote: I participate in this list by reading and don't feel pressure to write unless I have something to say. (This message is partly because non-writers to the list were recently excluded from participating in a poll, so I'm protecting myself for the future.) The point below about ratio of posters to subscribers is surely correct, and perhaps the number of regular posters is too small to allow us to draw conclusions on gender? The fact that I'm still participating after the quite testing regime of blast, counterblast and tiresome repetition we've been through recently shows how valuable I think this list (usually) is. :-) Kate On 06/24/13 10:14, Dan Brickley wrote: On 24 June 2013 10:34, Isabelle Augenstein i.augenst...@sheffield.ac.uk mailto:i.augenst...@sheffield.ac.uk wrote: Hi Dominic, I only joined the list a few months ago, so my observations might be inaccurate, but - Overall, most discussions on the list seem to be rather philosophical (What is Linked Data? Does Linked Data require RDF?), which are not the kind of discussions I was hoping for when I joined the list in the first place Quite. A lot of the initial enthusiasm about Linked Data was associated with a despair some felt about the Semantic Web slogan, which had got itself associated with overly-academic, complex-KR-obsessed and other unworldy concerns. I suspect this sort of churn is a natural part of the lifecycle of standards work; some are starting to feel about public-lod the same way. - My guess would be that the ratio between subscribers and people posting on the list is rather low in general in addition to few women being subscribed to the list (But I bet we can get some statistics for that?) There are just over 1000 subscribers to the list (no gender figures available for those). You can see from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/author.html who the most vocal participants are. Dan -- Kate Byrne School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/kbyrne3/ location:http://geohash.org/gcvwr2rkb5hd twitter: @katefbyrne The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- Marieke Guy Project Coordinator | skype: mariekeguy | tel: 44 (0) 1285 885681 | @mariekeguy http://twitter.com/mariekeguy The Open Knowledge Foundation %E2%80%9Dhttp://okfn.org/%E2%80%9D /Empowering through Open Knowledge/ http://okfn.org/ %E2%80%9Dhttp://okfn.org/%E2%80%9D | @okfn http://twitter.com/okfn| OKF on Facebook
Re: List membership - more women
On 24/06/2013 11:22, Barry Norton wrote: That said, what I'd like to do is to send an email to each new poster and invite them to fill out a form with their confirmed preferred name, volunteered other identities (Twitter handle, etc.) and now I'm thinking gender. Would people find this very intrusive, or is that a worthwhile idea? Barry I think as long as you explain what this information will be used for and state clearly that it is optional to fill out the form, it's a good idea. Isabelle
Re: There's No Money in Linked Data
Hi Andreas, Prateek, Very good points that you make about trust and domains. In fact specific domains like the biology one or the culture one (see lodlam.net) try to address these issues in much more specific terms and business models that what would be discussed on this public-lod list. So maybe that's whypeople around here just miss them. For example I'm proud to be part of an initiative that releases a lot of CC0 metadata and tries to think of business models for it [1]. But often techies are just not the best/only audience to spend efforts on: we need to discuss with data owners, other actors in the domains... In fact the guys leading these discussions in my project involve me only once in a while ;-) Best, Antoine [1] for example http://www.slideshare.net/antoineisaac/sxs-wi-culturehack-17106524 http://www.slideshare.net/hverwayen/business-model-innovation-open-data pro.europeana.eu/support-for-open-data Hi Andreas, Thank you for the post and for the discussion. I agree with most of it. Some specific comments *2. Most datasets of the LOD cloud are maintained by a single person or by nobody at all *(at least as stated on datahub.io http://datahub.io/) I think this is key, may be having a tiered system like (apache? ) might help. Datasets with one person involved, go into incubator phase? and then later on depending on community involvement, usage, bugs/errors found they are promoted to an advanced level? This will ensure a greater oversight and community involvement. This might help even with the issues of quality as well. *But now it’s time to clean up*: Very crucial. It is something we have tried to point out in the past, [1] Minor point: *1. The LOD cloud covers mainly ‘general knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_knowledge‘ in contrast to ‘domain knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_knowledge‘ * There are more domain specific datasets on LOD, Geonames, Music Brainz, Bio2RDF (you pointed out), Lingvoj,... I think there are few DBpedia like datasets (Freebase, and CIA Factbook). A big collection of information about places, * * *Reference: * [1] Linked data is merely more data P. Jain http://resweb.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-jainpr, P. Hitzler, P.Z. Yeh, K. Verma, A.P. Sheth /Linked Data Meets Artificial Intelligence/, 82--86, 2010 Regards Prateek - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prateek Jain, Ph. D. RSM IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 1101 Kitchawan Road, 37-244 Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 http://resweb.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-jainpr * * On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Andreas Blumauer (Semantic Web Company) a.bluma...@semantic-web.at mailto:a.bluma...@semantic-web.at wrote: Hi Prateek, hi all, thank you for the more precise formulation of your hypothesis. I've been thinking for a while what the reasons are for the low uptake of LOD in non-academic projects. Here is the outcome: http://blog.semantic-web.at/2013/06/07/the-lod-cloud-is-dead-long-live-the-trusted-lod-cloud/http://blog.semantic-web.at/2013/06/07/the-lod-cloud-is-dead-long-live-the-trusted-lod-cloud/ What do you think? Kind Regards, Andreas -- Hello All, I am one of the authors of the work being discussed. All the stuff I have seen till now is about Linked Data being great and useful for data integration within commercial settings. The work does not disputes that. I agree we didn't use the proper term, and from the reading of the work it becomes clear we didn't complain about this aspect. The work will be revised to correct the terminology and other feedback from the mailing list. The issue pointed out in the work is with Linked Open Data Cloud data sets. This is getting limited or no attention in the discussions. Its like saying the technology is awesome, lets not worry so much about the 'open' data sets. In Adrea's blog he is saying technology is mature
expressing SKILLS
Ahoy o/ I would like to figure out how we (general human population) can express our skill sets as LD. As well as our *intention* to #skillshare - learn and teach (or I prefer to see the second as *assisting others with learning*) I see various online services where people can create profile and add to it their skills. Sadly most of them works as proprietary silos. I would like to create for myself a proper WebID profile, similar to ones in https://my-profile.eu or http://foafpress.org and start expressing my skills there as LD. Later on, while starting to participate in various online services, I would demand that instead of throwing a form at me (and contributing to my networking fatigue), they just consume my linked open profile. Of course for services running open source code I can also take more proactive approach and offer help with implementing such features! I would also like to look if folks from Mozilla feel like aligning their http://openbadges.org to use JSON-LD. On their mailing list I remember mentions of http://www.lrmi.net and http://learningregistry.org To offer an example, I would like to publish on my independent open linked profile: I can repair bicycles (a claim) Other people also say that I can repair bicycles (verifications of my claim) My history of volunteering in community bike repair shops (claims) My history of participation in skillsharing events related to bike repair with distinction of learning and teaching (claims) Other people also saying that I participated in all the activities stated above (verification of my claims) I don't want to learn bike rapair I could help with teaching bike repair (i skip now labeling claims and verifications of them) I can program with ruby Open source repositories where I committed .rb files I gave those talks about ruby during conferences I would love to learn more ruby I would love to help with teaching ruby I can play guitar Online audio where one an hear me playing guitar I would love to learn how to play guitar I don't want to help with teaching how to play guitar We organize workshop on programming with javascript One can learn how to program javascript One can help with teaching how to program with javascript We maintain open source project Contributing requires skills in ruby on rails Contributing requires skills in rspec Contributing requires skills in gitflow etc. Some of example projects which might adopt open way of expressing sills: http://economyapp.eu http://sharetribe.com http://www.justfortheloveofit.org http://bancodetiempo.preparate.org/es/ https://www.timerepublik.com http://www.zumbara.com/en/ more timebanking services ;) https://p2pu.org (already using open badges!) http://www.opentechschool.org http://tradeschool.coop http://thepublicschool.org I appreciate all suggestions on implementation details as well as other collaboration spaces where people already work on such topic or might feel interested in #DIT[1] :) ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ http://wwelves.org/perpetual-tripper [1] Doing It Together
Re: The Test of Independent Invention (was: What Does Point Number 3 of TimBL's Linked Data Mean?)
On 24 June 2013 05:05, David Booth da...@dbooth.org wrote: I hope you realize that the point of that thought experiment is to ensure that the technology in question is sufficiently powerful and flexible, so that *if* a parallel technology were discovered, the two could be extended to encompass each other with minimal added cost -- *not* that it is in any way desirable to have such parallel technologies. Whether it's desirable or not to have diversity in technology is a whole other debate. It's arguable that the internet is sufficiently large a system such that diversity is inevitable. One thing that I think we can all agree on, is that interoperablity is a good thing. David On 06/22/2013 08:55 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: It took me quite a while to understand this fully. IMHO, it is really worth digesting. I think it also sheds light on how to approach some of the topics raised in the last week. [[ *The Test of Independent Invention* There's a test I use for technology which the Consortium is thinking of adopting, and I'll call it the Independent Invention test. Just suppose that someone had invented exactly the same system somewhere else, but made all the arbitrary decisions differently. Suppose after many years of development and adoption, the two systems came together. Would they work together? Take the Web. I tried to make it pass the test. Suppose someone had (and it was quite likely) invented a World Wide Web system somewhere else with the same principles. Suppose they called it the Multi Media Mesh (tm) and based it on Media Resource Identifiers(tm), the MultiMedia Transport Protocol(tm), and a Multi Media Markup Language(tm). After a few years, the Web and the Mesh meet. What is the damage? A huge battle, involving the abandonment of projects, conversion or loss of data? Division of the world by a border commission into two separate communities? Smooth integration with only incremental effort? Obviously we are looking for the latter option. Fortunately, we could immediately extend URIs to include mmtp:// and extend MRIs to include http;\\. We could make gateways, and on the better browsers immediately configure them to go through a gateway when finding a URI of the new type. * The URI space is universal: it covers all addresses of all accessible objects. But it does not have to be the only universal space. Universal, but not unique.* -- Tim Berners-Lee ]]
Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
On 6/24/13 2:14 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: Hello Kingsley Idehen, On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 05:32:00PM -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: We don't need a central repository of anything. Linked Data is supposed to be about enhancing serendipitous discovery of relevant things. Serendipitous discovery ? I guess you are not talking about generating random URLs to look if they access something interesting. No I am not. So probably you mean something like a SPARQL query using squin.org. It is quite obvious that this only works if every URI dereferences to a complete list of relevant links for this URI. Sounds like a central list of LOD apps. No I am not. Centralization doesn't scale, that's Web 101. Deactivate lod.openlinksw.com - that's web 101. And you have another example of a live instance comprised of 51 Billion+ triples atop which you can perform faceted-style navigation of entity relationship graphs, that's available to any human, program (many end-user, integrator, or developer tools), or crawler? Please point me to an example of that functionality. Anyway, here's my point: a global registry can start from a simple document that describes something. If the content of the document complies with Linked Data publishing principles, it will be discovered, with increasing degrees of serendipity. Google already demonstrates some of this, in the most obvious sense via its search engine, and no so obvious via its crawling of Linked Data which then makes its way Google Knowledge Graph and G+ etc.. Kingsley Regards, Michael Brunnbauer -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: List membership - more women
Why fill out a form?
Should they just give you a URI? :)
On Monday, June 24, 2013, Barry Norton wrote:
On 24/06/13 10:14, Dan Brickley wrote:
There are just over 1000 subscribers to the list (no gender figures
available for those). You can see from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**
Public/public-lod/2013Jun/**author.htmlhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/author.htmlwho
the most vocal participants are.
Dan
If you like SPARQL you can achieve this using:
$ curl -H Accept:text/csv --data-urlencode query=PREFIX xsd:
http://www.w3.org/2001/**XMLSchema# http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
SELECT ?creator (COUNT(?post) AS ?count) {http://lists.w3.org/**
Archives/Public/public-lod/**latest.rsshttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/latest.rss
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#**container_ofhttp://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#container_of
?post . ?post
http://purl.org/dc/elements/**1.1/creatorhttp://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator
?creator;
http://purl.org/dc/elements/**1.1/datehttp://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/date
?date . FILTER (xsd:dateTime(?date)
\2013-06-01T00:00:00Z\^^xsd:**dateTime)}
GROUP BY ?creator ORDER BY DESC(?count) euclid.sti2.org:8080/openrdf-**
sesame/repositories/platformhttp://euclid.sti2.org:8080/openrdf-sesame/repositories/platform
At the EUCLID review we had a nice Information Workbench front-end to this
monitoring endpoint - I'd like to open this up in the coming days as I
think most people would appreciate a barchart from a Web link, rather than
a CSV from a command-line.
That said, what I'd like to do is to send an email to each new poster and
invite them to fill out a form with their confirmed preferred name,
volunteered other identities (Twitter handle, etc.) and now I'm thinking
gender.
Would people find this very intrusive, or is that a worthwhile idea?
Barry
--
Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com
Re: List membership - more women
Excerpts from Juan Sequeda's message of 2013-06-24 12:56:47 +: Why fill out a form? Should they just give you a URI? :) +1 :) if given URI doesn't provide expected information, then one could show a fallback from + generate proper RDF + show instructions on how to publish it on given URI
RE: List membership - more women
I read the list too and also have some of the same sentiments as the other women - I don't feel particularly compelled to comment in discussions. Michael Brunnbauer and Pat Hayes work on our team and offer far more useful comments to the on-going discussions, but I do learn a lot (occasionally a little more than just crafty arguing) by reading the list. I'm just trying to build an application that takes advantage of linked data that real (as opposed to un-real :-), non-technical users can use. It's not big data, but it's good data - is what Pat Hayes' says about what we are doing with ImageSnippets. I was recently invited to speak at a conference in Barcelona on the future of metadata technology as it relates to photos. More and more people are becoming aware of the need to get their thinking out of the databases and api's and open to semantic technologies. But a lot of linked data applications are way beyond the technical level of even some fairly knowledgable developers - and even beyond their level of understanding about what linked data can do for them on a day to day basis. I started a game there called, 'What's your least favorite keyword?' A funny way to get people thinking about what they can do if they don't have to think about metadata in the same way they have been doing for 20 years. These academic discussions are interesting, but I don't think we'd be driving cars on autobahns today if people had discussed the engineering of the internal combustion engine this much before they machined their first pistons and cylinders. Standards surface over time as people actually try things and along the way have little successes and failures and so on. I liked something I read the other day that TimBl wrote about (paraphrased) ...the URI space being universal, but that there does not have to be only one universe. Universal but not unique. Margaret Warren
Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
On 6/24/13 2:44 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 6/24/13 6:23 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote: Hi Dominic, I agree with the relevance of the effort, and wouldn't argue against centralizing. Not everyone will have the resource to search in a decentralized fashion... What worries me a bit is how to learn lessons for the past. As you (or someone else) has pointed, there have been previous attempts in the past. For example http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/ I don't find the cases there super-technical. And is it really from the past? Looking closer, it seems still open for contribution: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/submit.html Actually I have submitted a case there way after the SWEO group was closed: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Europeana/ Now why do these things seem obsolete to newcomers? Just giving some account on what I've been involved in ... [Note: I'm sorry if sometimes it's going to read a bit as a rant. It's not intended, just trying honestly to reflect the situation ;-) It's also not purely about your case/requirement situation, but I believe the issues are very similar!] [Perspective from the case providers] It's hard to know where to contribute. Existing don't often come in the places where case owners are, or it's hard to tell whether they're still open. And there's always a fresher initiative (like the one you're trying to launch) which seems a good place. In fact I have actually created some updated description of the Europeana case http://lodlam.net/2013/06/18/what-is-europeana-doing-with-sw-and-lod/ But because the LODLAM summit was a more actual forum for me recently, I've posted it there. And failed thinking of updating the SWEO list, mea maxima culpa. [Perspective from the case gatherers] I have actually be involved as 'initiator' of a couple of listing. 1. SKOS datasets (which are a kind of 'case for SKOS') We started with a web page: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/data but as the list was difficult to maintain we soon created a community-writable wiki: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SKOS/Datasets As it seemed not modern enough, we've then encouraged people to use the same DataHub platform as the LOD cloud: http://datahub.io/dataset?q=format-skos But both are not very active. And they contain a lot of dead links... 2. Library-related datasets: http://datahub.io/dataset?groups=lld That list, started by the Library Linked Data W3C incubator, went alright as long as the group was running. Now I think the rate of new datasets is really small, even though I *know* there are many new ones. Both as SKOS community manager and former LLD co-chair, I've tried to actively mail people to create descriptions of their stuff. But it requires time. Most often they assume *you* would do it! And after a while, the supporters of such effort just have other things to do and can't afford very high level of commitment. What should we do if we want to build on existing lists and not re-invent the wheel every six months or so? Or is it worth sending a regular (monthly?) reminder to lists like public-lod, reminding everyone that these lists are available and open for contributions? Create a list of lists, as Wikipedia does? Best, Antoine Antoine, As you've indicated, there have been many attempts at this over the years and they never take-off or meet their goals etc.. The problem is that a different approach is required. Basically, in this scenario lies a simple Linked Data publication usecase i.e., a problem that Linked Data addresses. The steps: 1. use a Linked Data document to describe you product, service, platform, usecase 2. publish the document 3. make people aware of the document. Crawlers will find your document. The content of the document will show up in search results. The trouble is that confusion around Linked Data makes 1-3 harder than it needs to be. Then add RDF misconceptions to the mix, and it gets harder e.g., that you must have generally approved vocabulary before you get going, when in fact you don't. People need to understand that scribbling is a natural Web pattern i.e., rough cuts are okay since improvements will be continuous. Kingsley Two practical objection to this otherwise interesting approach. 1. For that kind of survey, as for the rest, people want trust. it will have to be curated (I mean, besides people just putting little bits of uncontrolled/outdated data out there), or it will fly only when thee distributed descriptions are harvested and accessible through something like Google/schema.org. Btw people also want visibility. You don't say anything about step 3... 2. It needs to be simple, as non-technical as possible. Step 1 is already too much. Consider LD consumers, who don't publish any LD, why would you ask them to publish an LD document? Actually even in organization that publish LD having step 2 and 3 will take some effort. Not much, I agree, but it won't be part of the
Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
On 24/06/13 13:44, Kingsley Idehen wrote: As you've indicated, there have been many attempts at this over the years and they never take-off or meet their goals etc.. The problem is that a different approach is required. Basically, in this scenario lies a simple Linked Data publication usecase i.e., a problem that Linked Data addresses. The steps: 1. use a Linked Data document to describe you product, service, platform, usecase 2. publish the document 3. make people aware of the document. Crawlers will find your document. The content of the document will show up in search results. There is, of course, the W3C community directory [1] which works exactly that way. It has project rather than usecase, and might need some extensions to support the fields that Dominic was suggesting. But it does provide a form based way to generate the initial RDF for you to publish, does the crawling and they provides a UI over the crawl. The trouble is ... [complaints snipped] People need to understand that scribbling is a natural Web pattern i.e., rough cuts are okay since improvements will be continuous. Reusing patterns does make it easier for tools to aggregate and present data. The perfect might be the enemy of the good, but sometimes a little effort to do things consistently is good. Dave [1] http://dir.w3.org/
RE: List membership - more women
Hi, I am one of the female lurkers. I am working on a project that is attempting to pull together some of the health/medical datasets. I may have posted once or twice when looking for some information. Generally, I have not posted because I wasn't sure if there was an official organization or structure behind this list - wasn't sure if posting would be appropriate or not. Bonnie MacKellar macke...@stjohns.edu From: Dominic Oldman [mailto:do...@oldman.me.uk] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 3:51 AM To: public-lod@w3 org Subject: List membership - more women Just a quick aside - I have noticed that I haven't seen any posts from women members. Is this because there aren't any, or very few? I was just wondering why that was and how we could individually, and as a group, encourage more women to contribute. I think that the list would benefit greatly from this. Dominic Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
Spell Checkers, because there are some jobs Web Visionaries just won't do. Unpaid volunteers have a plan for World Domination and it includes nice penmanship too :-) Reusing patterns does make it easier for tools to aggregate and present data. The perfect might be the enemy of the good, but sometimes a little effort to do things consistently is good. Dave [1] http://dir.w3.org/
Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
On 6/24/13 9:12 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote: On 6/24/13 2:44 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 6/24/13 6:23 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote: Hi Dominic, I agree with the relevance of the effort, and wouldn't argue against centralizing. Not everyone will have the resource to search in a decentralized fashion... What worries me a bit is how to learn lessons for the past. As you (or someone else) has pointed, there have been previous attempts in the past. For example http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/ I don't find the cases there super-technical. And is it really from the past? Looking closer, it seems still open for contribution: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/submit.html Actually I have submitted a case there way after the SWEO group was closed: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Europeana/ Now why do these things seem obsolete to newcomers? Just giving some account on what I've been involved in ... [Note: I'm sorry if sometimes it's going to read a bit as a rant. It's not intended, just trying honestly to reflect the situation ;-) It's also not purely about your case/requirement situation, but I believe the issues are very similar!] [Perspective from the case providers] It's hard to know where to contribute. Existing don't often come in the places where case owners are, or it's hard to tell whether they're still open. And there's always a fresher initiative (like the one you're trying to launch) which seems a good place. In fact I have actually created some updated description of the Europeana case http://lodlam.net/2013/06/18/what-is-europeana-doing-with-sw-and-lod/ But because the LODLAM summit was a more actual forum for me recently, I've posted it there. And failed thinking of updating the SWEO list, mea maxima culpa. [Perspective from the case gatherers] I have actually be involved as 'initiator' of a couple of listing. 1. SKOS datasets (which are a kind of 'case for SKOS') We started with a web page: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/data but as the list was difficult to maintain we soon created a community-writable wiki: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SKOS/Datasets As it seemed not modern enough, we've then encouraged people to use the same DataHub platform as the LOD cloud: http://datahub.io/dataset?q=format-skos But both are not very active. And they contain a lot of dead links... 2. Library-related datasets: http://datahub.io/dataset?groups=lld That list, started by the Library Linked Data W3C incubator, went alright as long as the group was running. Now I think the rate of new datasets is really small, even though I *know* there are many new ones. Both as SKOS community manager and former LLD co-chair, I've tried to actively mail people to create descriptions of their stuff. But it requires time. Most often they assume *you* would do it! And after a while, the supporters of such effort just have other things to do and can't afford very high level of commitment. What should we do if we want to build on existing lists and not re-invent the wheel every six months or so? Or is it worth sending a regular (monthly?) reminder to lists like public-lod, reminding everyone that these lists are available and open for contributions? Create a list of lists, as Wikipedia does? Best, Antoine Antoine, As you've indicated, there have been many attempts at this over the years and they never take-off or meet their goals etc.. The problem is that a different approach is required. Basically, in this scenario lies a simple Linked Data publication usecase i.e., a problem that Linked Data addresses. The steps: 1. use a Linked Data document to describe you product, service, platform, usecase 2. publish the document 3. make people aware of the document. Crawlers will find your document. The content of the document will show up in search results. The trouble is that confusion around Linked Data makes 1-3 harder than it needs to be. Then add RDF misconceptions to the mix, and it gets harder e.g., that you must have generally approved vocabulary before you get going, when in fact you don't. People need to understand that scribbling is a natural Web pattern i.e., rough cuts are okay since improvements will be continuous. Kingsley Two practical objection to this otherwise interesting approach. 1. For that kind of survey, as for the rest, people want trust. it will have to be curated (I mean, besides people just putting little bits of uncontrolled/outdated data out there), or it will fly only when thee distributed descriptions are harvested and accessible through something like Google/schema.org. Btw people also want visibility. You don't say anything about step 3... You can sign documents. You can even sign claims. Even better, claims can be endorsed by others. These a issues naturally handled by Linked Data. Verifiable Identity and Trust are areas where Linked Data shines. 2. It needs to be simple, as
Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
On 6/24/13 10:12 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: You were talking about serendipitous discovery without central repositories. Yes I am. I've been talking about it for a long time [1]. Michael, I forgot to add a link section. [1] http://bit.ly/TWw4Ck -- about SDQ (Serendipitous Discovery Quotient) . -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: RDF Investigations
On Jun 23, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: Hi folks, A couple of years ago I got the idea of finding alternatives to the official definition of RDF, especially the semantics. I've always found the official docs less than crystal clear, and have always harbored the suspicion that the model-theoretic definition of RDF semantics offered in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ was unnecessary, or at least unnecessarily complicated. Needless to say that is my own personal aesthetic judgment, but it did motivate my little project. I guess the past two years have not been completely wasted on me; what was a somewhat vague intuition back then seems to have matured into a pretty clear idea of how RDF ought to be conceptualized and formally defined. Clear to me, anyway; whether it is to others, and whether it is correct or not is a whole 'nother matter. Since pursuing this idea will involve a lot of writing I won't pursue it here; instead I've described the the basic ideas in a blog post at http://blog.mobileink.com/. Hmm. You say some things in there that seem to be just plain wrong. 1. [The RDF semantics] restricts interpretation to a single semantic domain. I am not sure how you can possibly read the semantics in this way, but the whole point of model theory is to permit many - usually, infinitely many - interpretations, over arbitrary domains. The only domain restriction in RDF (as in most model theories) is that the domain be non-empty and that it contain basic literal values such as character strings. 2. The so-called abstract syntax described in RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax serves as the formula calculus, but it is incomplete. It specifies that a triple (statement) contains three terms (nodes), and that an RDF graph is a set of triples. But these are not rules of a calculus; they do not tell us how to construct statements in a formal language. First, the whole point of defining an 'abstract' syntax is to allow for a variety of concrete (lexical) syntaxes, so if you prefer to work at a concrete level, just choose one of those, eg RDF/XML or N-Triples. But more to the point, the abstract graph syntax *is* a formal language with a perfectly well-defined syntax. It is not a character-string syntax, but it is a syntax, with exact syntactic rules. A very simple syntax, but that simplicity was a deliberate part of the design. 3. ... semantic entailment (not to be confused with logical entailment)... Can you elicidate what you see as this distinction that is not to be confused? The textbook account of a formal logic distinguishes entailment, a purely semantic notion, often symbolized by the sign |=, from deducibility (via formal inference rules and axioms, typically), often symbolized by |-, and completeness is the property of these two coinciding. I do not know of any notion of logical *entailment* other than the semantic |= notion. Deducibility is not entailment. 4. The business of model theory is to build a bridge between formal calculi and (informal) semantic domains. You don't need a formal representation of the semantic domain... Model theory *is* the result of formalizing the semantic domain. That was the new idea in Tarski's original publication which founded the subject in the 1940s. HIs title, you might recall, was A theory of truth for formalized languages. 5. ...model theory, ... makes automated proof a legitimate idea. Proof theory makes automated proof a legitimate idea. Model theory establishes completeness of the formal proof methods. and I guess I won't bother to go on with this list. Your main point, however, seems to be that one could formalize RDF as an uninterpreted calculus and then go and look for alternative ways to interpret it, and maybe find some new ones. I am sure that this program would succeed, in the sense that you would indeed find alternative semantics. But let me ask the larger question: what exactly is the point of this enterprise? Since the only point of inventing RDF in the first place was to provide for a basic degree of interoperability at a semantic level, what purpose could there be in ignoring this aspect of RDF? Considered as a pure, uninterpreted formal calculus, RDF is hardly there at all, it is so minimal. As you point out, it does not come with any proof rules or indeed even with any notion of proof already defined for it, and if you don't think the graph syntax is adequate, then it doesn't even come with a syntax. So it is hardly there at all: no wonder you could, if you were so inclined, make it into just about anything at all, if you ignore the normative semantics. If you want to have fun with formalisms, why not choose something with a bit more bite to it, such as an uninterpreted lambda-calculus, say? Or Javascript? The allusion to Wittgenstein, that great philosophical therapist, is entirely intentional. You (or at least I) find out a lot of things when you
Re: RDF Investigations
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Adrian Walker adriandwal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Gregg, Interesting. You may like the example www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/RDFQueryLangComparison1.agent For the non-aggregation parts of the example, the formal semantics in effect are described in Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is Simple Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 11:1-22 Thank you, I'll take a look. Gregg
Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
Hello Kingsley, On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:12:43AM -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Sorry for PGP-signing my last couple of mails. I guess this is not good practice on mailing lists. I sign my emails using an X.509 certificate that includes a person URI in its SAN slot :-) Hmm... if your Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol=application/pkcs7-signature; is OK, my Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol=application/pgp-signature should be OK too. Or are there less problems with S/MIME for some reason ? So I will keep signing my mails to the list until someone gives me a reason not to. Regards, Michael Brunnbauer -- ++ Michael Brunnbauer ++ netEstate GmbH ++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a ++ 81379 München ++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80 ++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 ++ E-Mail bru...@netestate.de ++ http://www.netestate.de/ ++ ++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München) ++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342 ++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer ++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel pgpL6rcjlM2Wk.pgp Description: PGP signature
New DBpedia Overview Article Available
All, FYI. Original Message Subject:[Dbpedia-discussion] New DBpedia Overview Article Available Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:03:05 +0200 From: Jens Lehmann lehm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de To: dbpedia-discuss...@lists.sourceforge.net Dear all, we are pleased to announce that a new overview article for DBpedia is available: http://svn.aksw.org/papers/2013/SWJ_DBpedia/public.pdf The report covers several aspects of the DBpedia community project: * The DBpedia extraction framework. * The mappings wiki as the central structure for maintaining the community-curated DBpedia ontology. * Statistics on the multilingual support in DBpedia. * DBpedia live synchronisation with Wikipedia. * Statistics on the interlinking of DBpedia with other parts of the LOD cloud (incoming and outgoing links). * Several usage statistics: What kind of queries are asked against DBpedia and how did that change over the past years? How much traffic do the official static and live endpoint as well as the download server have? What are the most popular DBpedia datasets? * A description of use cases and applications of DBpedia in several areas (drop me mail if important applications are missing). * The relation of DBpedia to the YAGO, Freebase and WikiData projects. * Future challenges for the DBpedia project. After our ISWC 2009 paper on DBpedia, this is the (long overdue) new reference article for DBpedia, which should provide a good introduction to the project. We submitted the article as a system report to the Semantic Web journal, where it will be reviewed. Thanks a lot to all article contributors and to all DBpedia developers and users. Feel free to spread the information to interested groups and users. Kind regards, Jens -- Dr. Jens Lehmann AKSW/MOLE Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig Homepage: http://www.jens-lehmann.org GPG Key: http://jens-lehmann.org/jens_lehmann.asc smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
On 6/24/13 11:05 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: Hello Kingsley, On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:12:43AM -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Sorry for PGP-signing my last couple of mails. I guess this is not good practice on mailing lists. I sign my emails using an X.509 certificate that includes a person URI in its SAN slot :-) Hmm... if your Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol=application/pkcs7-signature; is OK, my Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol=application/pgp-signature should be OK too. Yes. Or are there less problems with S/MIME for some reason ? There shouldn't be. It might be that pkcs#7 signature attachments are pre-configured as a known or acceptable attachment format. I guess one for the W3C admins responsible for the infrastructure behind this list. So I will keep signing my mails to the list until someone gives me a reason not to. Yes. Regards, Michael Brunnbauer -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: New DBpedia Overview Article Available
Hi Kinsgley we are pleased to announce that a new overview article for DBpedia is available:http://svn.aksw.org/papers/2013/SWJ_DBpedia/public.pdf Ummm.. Is this link (URL) really public? Thanks for sharing. Ghislain -- Ghislain Atemezing EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department Campus SophiaTech 450, route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France. e-mail: auguste.atemez...@eurecom.fr ghislain.atemez...@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin
Re: RDF Investigations
On 6/24/13 10:32 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: If you can give up on all this, what do you take yourself to be referring to when you say RDF ? You have just dismissed virtually every defining characteristic of RDF as either wrong or inessential. So what is left? Pat I am going to create a poll aimed as getting a feel for what folks perceive as the defining characteristics of RDF. In recent times, I've come to believe those characteristics aren't so clear anymore. Here's a draft of the questions for the poll: 1. Don't know 2. Don't care 3. Linked Data Creation 4. Interpretable Linked Data Creation 5. W3C standard. To you and anyone else that might be interested, are there any other questions I should add to the list above? -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Literature on semantic web and similar models
With all the concurrent, separate and interrelated threads on semantic web and RDF can anyone please tell me if there are some good overview articles on RDF and logical and mathematical models and frameworks for modelling linked data which includes the Semantic web and RDF and (all) other similar schemes? We are launching an initiative soon to get all issues related to sustainable development into the realm of open access, which includes linked open data, linked data, big data and open repositories. Both the European Union and the United Nations, the latter in particular through the FAO, UNESCO and UNEP are pushing for linked data. We will be creating a case study register for this category and welcome shared efforts to combine these into one central register. Milton Ponson GSM: +297 747 8280 PO Box 1154, Oranjestad Aruba, Dutch Caribbean Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Percentages in Linked Data
Hello, I would like to publish some statistical data. A few of these numbers are percentages. What is the best way to make it clear to data consumers that the numbers are to be treated as percentages? As far as I can tell, the XSD data types do not suffice. Regards, Frans Knibbe
Re: Percentages in Linked Data
Frans, I think you may be interested in the W3C RDF Data Cube vocabulary: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/ Abstract: There are many situations where it would be useful to be able to publish multi-dimensional data, such as statistics, on the web in such a way that it can be linked to related data sets and concepts. The Data Cube vocabulary provides a means to do this using the W3C RDF (Resource Description Framework) standard. The model underpinning the Data Cube vocabulary is compatible with the cube model that underlies SDMX (Statistical Data and Metadata eXchange), an ISO standard for exchanging and sharing statistical data and metadata among organizations. The Data Cube vocabulary is a core foundation which supports extension vocabularies to enable publication of other aspects of statistical data flows or other multi-dimensional data sets... John On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan frans.kni...@geodan.nl wrote: Hello, I would like to publish some statistical data. A few of these numbers are percentages. What is the best way to make it clear to data consumers that the numbers are to be treated as percentages? As far as I can tell, the XSD data types do not suffice. Regards, Frans Knibbe -- John S. Erickson, Ph.D. Director, Web Science Operations Tetherless World Constellation (RPI) http://tw.rpi.edu olyerick...@gmail.com Twitter Skype: olyerickson
Re: Literature on semantic web and similar models
Dear Milton, just off the cuff (I hope this was the level of analysis you were looking for): RDF and semantic web in my opinion, this is a good article about the linking of RDF with ontologies and so, in a sense, between the linked-data and semantic-web communities*: http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/ian.horrocks/Publications/download/2008/Horr08a.pdf * this distinction is not standard, but I think it can be drawn to a certain extent: on one side, the LOD community, using RDF mainly for inter-operability purposes; on the other side, the semantic web community, which is more ground within the formal logic and AI tradition, and which prefers OWL more than generic RDF as modeling language. Another great doc on the formal issues behind querying RDF is: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/ in which SPARQL 1.1 entailment regimes are discussed. In general, finding presentations of the formal underpinning of generic RDF (other than the W3C docs, which are by the way excellent) is in general harder. Maybe someone else has suggestions about this? OWL and and first order logic On the relationship between description logics and FOL (and hence the relational model): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.58.8255 I recommend in general Ian Horrock's overview articles for those who are interested in the formal underpinning of OWL. Look especially on the differences between semantic assumptions (such as closed world assumption). This path can lead to the connections with the Datalog/Prolog world. Linked data and Big Data On the relationship between linked data and big data: http://www.fujitsu.com/uk/Images/Linked-data-connecting-and-exploiting-big-data-(v1.0).pdf XML and RDF There is a debate going on about the limitations of XML over RDF, but I don't have specific references (apart from noting that XML, when used as a data model (and not merely as a syntax), can only represent tree-like models). Il giorno 24/giu/2013, alle ore 18:41, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program metadataport...@yahoo.com ha scritto: With all the concurrent, separate and interrelated threads on semantic web and RDF can anyone please tell me if there are some good overview articles on RDF and logical and mathematical models and frameworks for modelling linked data which includes the Semantic web and RDF and (all) other similar schemes? We are launching an initiative soon to get all issues related to sustainable development into the realm of open access, which includes linked open data, linked data, big data and open repositories. Both the European Union and the United Nations, the latter in particular through the FAO, UNESCO and UNEP are pushing for linked data. We will be creating a case study register for this category and welcome shared efforts to combine these into one central register. Milton Ponson GSM: +297 747 8280 PO Box 1154, Oranjestad Aruba, Dutch Caribbean Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Re: Percentages in Linked Data
Hi Frans, On 24/06/13 17:37, Frans Knibbe | Geodan wrote: Hello, I would like to publish some statistical data. A few of these numbers are percentages. What is the best way to make it clear to data consumers that the numbers are to be treated as percentages? As far as I can tell, the XSD data types do not suffice. QUDT does include percent as a unit: http://qudt.org/vocab/unit#Percent Assuming you are using the RDF Data Cube then you can use this as the value of unit of measure attribute (sdmx-attribute:unitMeasure). If you are dealing with single measures or measure-dimension cubes that should be fine. You are using multi-measure observations then life gets harder. In that case you might consider encoding your values as e.g. qudt:QuantityValues and attaching the unit of measure that way. Dave
Re: New DBpedia Overview Article Available
Am 24.06.2013 18:28, schrieb Ghislain Atemezing: Hi Kinsgley we are pleased to announce that a new overview article for DBpedia is available:http://svn.aksw.org/papers/2013/SWJ_DBpedia/public.pdf Ummm.. Is this link (URL) really public? The official submission is available here: http://semantic-web-journal.net/content/dbpedia-large-scale-multilingual-knowledge-base-extracted-wikipedia Best, Sören
Re: New DBpedia Overview Article Available
On Jun 24, 2013, at 12:28, Ghislain Atemezing auguste.atemez...@eurecom.fr wrote: Hi Kinsgley we are pleased to announce that a new overview article for DBpedia is available:http://svn.aksw.org/papers/2013/SWJ_DBpedia/public.pdf Ummm.. Is this link (URL) really public? I can get to the document via curl, but Chrome won't resolve it. I suspect the problem is the bogus content type: [[ Content-Type: application/octet-stream ]] Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood Thanks for sharing. Ghislain -- Ghislain Atemezing EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department Campus SophiaTech 450, route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France. e-mail: auguste.atemez...@eurecom.fr ghislain.atemez...@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: expressing SKILLS
Hi elf, some time ago I co-designed the Cognitive Characteristics Ontology [1] as extension/addition to FOAF to express cognitive characteristics, e.g., skills. You can find various examples in the examples section [2] of the ontology specification documentation that include skill descriptions in short and detailed (amongst other things, e.g., beliefs). Furthermore, at [3] you can find a summary of CV schemata that can be utilised to describe someone's skills etc. Cheers, Bo PS: I think at LOV [4] you can probably also find some more pointers to useful vocabularies for describing your domain [1] http://purl.org/ontology/cco/core# [2] http://purl.org/ontology/cco/cognitivecharacteristics.html#sec-example [3] http://www.w3.org/wiki/CVSchemata [4] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/index.html On 6/24/2013 1:31 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote: Ahoy o/ I would like to figure out how we (general human population) can express our skill sets as LD. As well as our *intention* to #skillshare - learn and teach (or I prefer to see the second as *assisting others with learning*) I see various online services where people can create profile and add to it their skills. Sadly most of them works as proprietary silos. I would like to create for myself a proper WebID profile, similar to ones in https://my-profile.eu or http://foafpress.org and start expressing my skills there as LD. Later on, while starting to participate in various online services, I would demand that instead of throwing a form at me (and contributing to my networking fatigue), they just consume my linked open profile. Of course for services running open source code I can also take more proactive approach and offer help with implementing such features! I would also like to look if folks from Mozilla feel like aligning their http://openbadges.org to use JSON-LD. On their mailing list I remember mentions of http://www.lrmi.net and http://learningregistry.org To offer an example, I would like to publish on my independent open linked profile: I can repair bicycles (a claim) Other people also say that I can repair bicycles (verifications of my claim) My history of volunteering in community bike repair shops (claims) My history of participation in skillsharing events related to bike repair with distinction of learning and teaching (claims) Other people also saying that I participated in all the activities stated above (verification of my claims) I don't want to learn bike rapair I could help with teaching bike repair (i skip now labeling claims and verifications of them) I can program with ruby Open source repositories where I committed .rb files I gave those talks about ruby during conferences I would love to learn more ruby I would love to help with teaching ruby I can play guitar Online audio where one an hear me playing guitar I would love to learn how to play guitar I don't want to help with teaching how to play guitar We organize workshop on programming with javascript One can learn how to program javascript One can help with teaching how to program with javascript We maintain open source project Contributing requires skills in ruby on rails Contributing requires skills in rspec Contributing requires skills in gitflow etc. Some of example projects which might adopt open way of expressing sills: http://economyapp.eu http://sharetribe.com http://www.justfortheloveofit.org http://bancodetiempo.preparate.org/es/ https://www.timerepublik.com http://www.zumbara.com/en/ more timebanking services ;) https://p2pu.org (already using open badges!) http://www.opentechschool.org http://tradeschool.coop http://thepublicschool.org I appreciate all suggestions on implementation details as well as other collaboration spaces where people already work on such topic or might feel interested in #DIT[1] :) ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ http://wwelves.org/perpetual-tripper [1] Doing It Together
Re: RDF Investigations
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Hi, and thanks for the comments. FYI I have some draft articles in the can that will add clarity and detail, I hope. In the meantime ... On Jun 23, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: Hi folks, A couple of years ago I got the idea of finding alternatives to the official definition of RDF, especially the semantics. I've always found the official docs less than crystal clear, and have always harbored the suspicion that the model-theoretic definition of RDF semantics offered in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ was unnecessary, or at least unnecessarily complicated. Needless to say that is my own personal aesthetic judgment, but it did motivate my little project. I guess the past two years have not been completely wasted on me; what was a somewhat vague intuition back then seems to have matured into a pretty clear idea of how RDF ought to be conceptualized and formally defined. Clear to me, anyway; whether it is to others, and whether it is correct or not is a whole 'nother matter. Since pursuing this idea will involve a lot of writing I won't pursue it here; instead I've described the the basic ideas in a blog post at http://blog.mobileink.com/. Hmm. You say some things in there that seem to be just plain wrong. 1. [The RDF semantics] restricts interpretation to a single semantic domain. I am not sure how you can possibly read the semantics in this way, but the whole point of model theory is to permit many - usually, infinitely many - interpretations, over arbitrary domains. The only domain restriction in RDF (as in most model theories) is that the domain be non-empty and that it contain basic literal values such as character strings. Point taken. My statement was incorrect and needs to be changed; the point I was trying to get at is that RDF-MT seems to privilege the domain it defines - the set IR of Resources, etc. The basic semantic constraints are stated in terms of this domain, which implicitly restricts semantic domains to those that have, for example, a set of binary relations for the properties. But this is not necessary; you can define models that do not contain such relations. An obvious example is a set of objects N and the set of their triples NxNxN. (I'll describe this in more detail in a later blog article). 2. The so-called abstract syntax described in RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax serves as the formula calculus, but it is incomplete. It specifies that a triple (statement) contains three terms (nodes), and that an RDF graph is a set of triples. But these are not rules of a calculus; they do not tell us how to construct statements in a formal language. First, the whole point of defining an 'abstract' syntax is to allow for a variety of concrete (lexical) syntaxes, so if you prefer to work at a concrete level, just choose one of those, eg RDF/XML or N-Triples. It just dawned on me that when people talk about the abstract syntax of RDF in this manner what they often mean is abstract description of possible syntax (or set of syntaxes). Is that a fair description of what you have in mind? I can't see any other way to read it, since by definition what is abstract cannot be written down, and if you cannot write it down you may be able to think about it but you cannot use it to communicate. You can publish a document that describes a class of syntaxes abstractly, but you cannot publish and abstract syntax. I suppose one could describe an abstract syntax by referring only to syntactic positions and symbol classes; e.g. for Lisp something like the first symbol must be an opening delimiter, the second a function symbol, and so forth. But this would be useless for model theory, which needs not only symbols but tokens. Actually SGML did something like this; it's the only language I know of that describes something approximating an abstract syntax. But its abstract syntax is in fact concrete; it uses symbols like DELIM (made that up, don't recall the exact expression) for concrete symbol classes. But that makes for a meta-syntax, not an abstract syntax. There's nothing abstract about it; it's a concrete syntax that describes a class of other concrete syntaxes. One can think of it as *expressing a generalization or abstraction, but that's a lot different than saying it *is* abstract. A meta-syntax of this character is what RDF lacks. But more to the point, the abstract graph syntax *is* a formal language with a perfectly well-defined syntax. It is not a character-string syntax, but it is a syntax, with exact syntactic rules. A very simple syntax, but that simplicity was a deliberate part of the design. Can you point me to the rule that says how to write down a triple so that I can specify an interpretation for it? Here's an easy example off the top of my head of what I would count as a meta-syntax for (part of) simple RDF: define A, B, C, ... as
Re: List membership - more women
On 06/24/2013 09:45 AM, Bonnie MacKellar wrote: Hi, I am one of the female lurkers. I am working on a project that is attempting to pull together some of the health/medical datasets. I may have posted once or twice when looking for some information. Generally, I have not posted because I wasn’t sure if there was an official organization or structure behind this list – wasn’t sure if posting would be appropriate or not. This is a public forum sponsored by the W3C. Quoting from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/ The public-lod@w3.org mailing list provides a discussion forum for members of the Linking Open Data project and the broader Linked Data community. The Linking Open Data project is a grassroots community effort founded in February 2007 as a W3C Semantic Web Education and Outreach Interest Group Community Project. The aim of the project is to identify datasets that are available under open licenses, re-publish these in RDF on the Web and interlink them with each other. So yes, you are welcome to post here. David
Re: New DBpedia Overview Article Available
David - try http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/dbpedia-large-scale-multilingual-knowledge-base-extracted-wikipedia P. On 6/24/2013 2:52 PM, David Wood wrote: On Jun 24, 2013, at 12:28, Ghislain Atemezing auguste.atemez...@eurecom.fr wrote: Hi Kinsgley we are pleased to announce that a new overview article for DBpedia is available:http://svn.aksw.org/papers/2013/SWJ_DBpedia/public.pdf Ummm.. Is this link (URL) really public? I can get to the document via curl, but Chrome won't resolve it. I suspect the problem is the bogus content type: [[ Content-Type: application/octet-stream ]] Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood Thanks for sharing. Ghislain -- Ghislain Atemezing EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department Campus SophiaTech 450, route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France. e-mail: auguste.atemez...@eurecom.fr ghislain.atemez...@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin -- Prof. Dr. Pascal Hitzler Kno.e.sis Center, Wright State University, Dayton, OH pas...@pascal-hitzler.de http://pascal-hitzler.de/ Semantic Web Textbook: http://www.semantic-web-book.org/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/
Re: New DBpedia Overview Article Available
On Jun 24, 2013, at 15:35, Pascal Hitzler pascal.hitz...@wright.edu wrote: David - try http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/dbpedia-large-scale-multilingual-knowledge-base-extracted-wikipedia That works. Thanks, Pascal. Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood P. On 6/24/2013 2:52 PM, David Wood wrote: On Jun 24, 2013, at 12:28, Ghislain Atemezing auguste.atemez...@eurecom.fr wrote: Hi Kinsgley we are pleased to announce that a new overview article for DBpedia is available:http://svn.aksw.org/papers/2013/SWJ_DBpedia/public.pdf Ummm.. Is this link (URL) really public? I can get to the document via curl, but Chrome won't resolve it. I suspect the problem is the bogus content type: [[ Content-Type: application/octet-stream ]] Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood Thanks for sharing. Ghislain -- Ghislain Atemezing EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department Campus SophiaTech 450, route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France. e-mail: auguste.atemez...@eurecom.fr ghislain.atemez...@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin -- Prof. Dr. Pascal Hitzler Kno.e.sis Center, Wright State University, Dayton, OH pas...@pascal-hitzler.de http://pascal-hitzler.de/ Semantic Web Textbook: http://www.semantic-web-book.org/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: List membership - more women
Hi Bonnie, On Jun 24, 2013, at 15:20, David Booth da...@dbooth.org wrote: On 06/24/2013 09:45 AM, Bonnie MacKellar wrote: Hi, I am one of the female lurkers. I am working on a project that is attempting to pull together some of the health/medical datasets. I may have posted once or twice when looking for some information. Generally, I have not posted because I wasn’t sure if there was an official organization or structure behind this list – wasn’t sure if posting would be appropriate or not. This is a public forum sponsored by the W3C. Quoting from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/ The public-lod@w3.org mailing list provides a discussion forum for members of the Linking Open Data project and the broader Linked Data community. The Linking Open Data project is a grassroots community effort founded in February 2007 as a W3C Semantic Web Education and Outreach Interest Group Community Project. The aim of the project is to identify datasets that are available under open licenses, re-publish these in RDF on the Web and interlink them with each other. So yes, you are welcome to post here. …and I at least hope you do! I am also working on aggregating health/medical datasets at the moment and would enjoy hearing of your experiences. Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood David smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: RDF Investigations
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: On 6/24/13 10:32 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: If you can give up on all this, what do you take yourself to be referring to when you say RDF ? You have just dismissed virtually every defining characteristic of RDF as either wrong or inessential. So what is left? Pat I am going to create a poll aimed as getting a feel for what folks perceive as the defining characteristics of RDF. In recent times, I've come to believe those characteristics aren't so clear anymore. Kingsley, Kingsley, Kingsley, you old thread hijacker you. ;) Best of luck, but for the record, I don't have a dog in that fight. As far as I'm concerned people can use RDF to mean whatever they want it to mean, as long as the software works. -Gregg
Linked Data and the Original Web Proposal
All, I've taken the time to embellish TimBL's original WWW proposal illustration with Linked Data URIs [1]. Why? Because, it seems to be unclear (to many) if the original WWW design had Linked Data in mind all along. My claim and long standing position: The original WWW design always had Linked Data in mind, and the proof lies in the presence of fundamental Linked Data characteristics which come to life once you turn the literal relation names (denotations) into HTTP URIs, without cluttering the diagram. Remember, the rules for Linked Data publication are: 1. use URIs to name (denote) entities (things) 2. use HTTP URIs so that names can be looked-up (i.e, by HTTP URI de-reference) 3. provide useful information when HTTP URIs are looked up -- basically, this is where industry standards for data representation and access come into play (e.g., RDF and SPARQL, respectively) 4. also refer to other entities (things) using their URIs as part of the information you provide in #3. The WWW proposal diagram shows an collection of entities related is a variety of ways i.e., the links/relations are typed. Basically you have a relations property hierarchy where linksTo or connectedTo sits at the top with describes, includes, refers to are sub properties. Writing this all up in Turtle should be pretty obvious, and If need be I'll even do that too. Conclusion: The point here is not to create and endless permathread. The simple goal is to be crystal clear about Linked Data, the World Wide Web, and eventually RDF. I am singling out RDF at this point because lost in many of the fragmented threads is the fact that I am yet to have any respond with a clear lits of characteristics that are unique to RDF i.e., what makes a document distinctly RDF and nothing but that? The fact that I claim that RDF distinguishing features haven't been presented so far in no way implies: 1. that they don't exist 2. that this is some quest to replace RDF. There is only one quest here, and that is to be crystal clear about Linked Data while also being crystal clear about RDF. They both deserve clarity since conflating them remains eternally detrimental to both. Even worse, it just pushes the same old permathreads into the future. Links: 1. http://bit.ly/1aIiD0L -- directory browsing view exposing the image mapped HTML doc, jpeg, and OmniGraffle source file. 2. http://bit.ly/16v8fpR -- original WWW proposal diagram enhanced with actual live HTTP URIs (most resolve to documents that describe the URI's referent) . -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Linked Data and the Original Web Proposal
On 24 June 2013 21:56, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: All, I've taken the time to embellish TimBL's original WWW proposal illustration with Linked Data URIs [1]. Why? Because, it seems to be unclear (to many) if the original WWW design had Linked Data in mind all along. My claim and long standing position: The original WWW design always had Linked Data in mind, and the proof lies in the presence of fundamental Linked Data characteristics which come to life once you turn the literal relation names (denotations) into HTTP URIs, without cluttering the diagram. Remember, the rules for Linked Data publication are: 1. use URIs to name (denote) entities (things) 2. use HTTP URIs so that names can be looked-up (i.e, by HTTP URI de-reference) 3. provide useful information when HTTP URIs are looked up -- basically, this is where industry standards for data representation and access come into play (e.g., RDF and SPARQL, respectively) 4. also refer to other entities (things) using their URIs as part of the information you provide in #3. The WWW proposal diagram shows an collection of entities related is a variety of ways i.e., the links/relations are typed. Basically you have a relations property hierarchy where linksTo or connectedTo sits at the top with describes, includes, refers to are sub properties. Writing this all up in Turtle should be pretty obvious, and If need be I'll even do that too. Conclusion: The point here is not to create and endless permathread. The simple goal is to be crystal clear about Linked Data, the World Wide Web, and eventually RDF. I am singling out RDF at this point because lost in many of the fragmented threads is the fact that I am yet to have any respond with a clear lits of characteristics that are unique to RDF i.e., what makes a document distinctly RDF and nothing but that? The fact that I claim that RDF distinguishing features haven't been presented so far in no way implies: 1. that they don't exist 2. that this is some quest to replace RDF. There is only one quest here, and that is to be crystal clear about Linked Data while also being crystal clear about RDF. They both deserve clarity since conflating them remains eternally detrimental to both. Even worse, it just pushes the same old permathreads into the future. Links: 1. http://bit.ly/1aIiD0L -- directory browsing view exposing the image mapped HTML doc, jpeg, and OmniGraffle source file. 2. http://bit.ly/16v8fpR -- original WWW proposal diagram enhanced with actual live HTTP URIs (most resolve to documents that describe the URI's referent) . The original (and current) vision is expressed quite well in Tim's book, Weaving the Web. From the first pages: [[ .. the idea stayed with me that computers could become much more powerful if they could be programmed to link otherwise unconnected information. ... a vision encompassing the decentralized, organic growth of ideas, technology, and society. T*he vision I have for the Web is about anything being potentially connected with anything*. It is a vision that provides us with new freedom, and allows us to grow faster than we ever could when we were fettered by the hierarchical classification systems into which we bound ourselves. It leaves the entirety of our previous ways of working as just one tool among many. It leaves our previous fears for the future as one set among many. And it brings the workings of society closer to the workings of our minds. ]] http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm/book_number/125/weaving-the-web -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehenhttp://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/abouthttps://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehenhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Re: RDF Investigations
On 6/24/13 3:52 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: On 6/24/13 10:32 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: If you can give up on all this, what do you take yourself to be referring to when you say RDF ? You have just dismissed virtually every defining characteristic of RDF as either wrong or inessential. So what is left? Pat I am going to create a poll aimed as getting a feel for what folks perceive as the defining characteristics of RDF. In recent times, I've come to believe those characteristics aren't so clear anymore. Kingsley, Kingsley, Kingsley, you old thread hijacker you. ;) Best of luck, but for the record, I don't have a dog in that fight. As far as I'm concerned people can use RDF to mean whatever they want it to mean, as long as the software works. -Gregg Gregg, There is an issue here that for whatever reasons simply keeps on getting lost. The question is simple: what are the unique characteristics of RDF? What does RDF do uniquely? I actually believe RDF does have unique characteristics, but I am curious to see if mine are in alignment with views of others. I really don't want RDF to become something that's based on a leap of faith, we can do much better than that :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Percentages in Linked Data
On 24-6-2013 19:16, John Erickson wrote: Frans, I think you may be interested in the W3C RDF Data Cube vocabulary: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/ Thanks John. I am already trying to use the Data Cube vocabulary. Although I am not a statistician I think it is a great vocabulary, enabling the processing of data sets without any prior knowledge of structure or content. But I just couldn't find a way to clearly publish a percentage. Frans Abstract: There are many situations where it would be useful to be able to publish multi-dimensional data, such as statistics, on the web in such a way that it can be linked to related data sets and concepts. The Data Cube vocabulary provides a means to do this using the W3C RDF (Resource Description Framework) standard. The model underpinning the Data Cube vocabulary is compatible with the cube model that underlies SDMX (Statistical Data and Metadata eXchange), an ISO standard for exchanging and sharing statistical data and metadata among organizations. The Data Cube vocabulary is a core foundation which supports extension vocabularies to enable publication of other aspects of statistical data flows or other multi-dimensional data sets... John On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan frans.kni...@geodan.nl wrote: Hello, I would like to publish some statistical data. A few of these numbers are percentages. What is the best way to make it clear to data consumers that the numbers are to be treated as percentages? As far as I can tell, the XSD data types do not suffice. Regards, Frans Knibbe -- -- *Geodan* President Kennedylaan 1 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 E frans.kni...@geodan.nl www.geodan.nl http://www.geodan.nl | disclaimer http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer --
Re: Linked Data and the Original Web Proposal
Kingsley, how about being crystal clear of HTTP as well then? Isn't that an implementation detail just as your understanding of RDF within Linked Data is? - sorry for unleashing hell again On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.comwrote: On 24 June 2013 21:56, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: All, I've taken the time to embellish TimBL's original WWW proposal illustration with Linked Data URIs [1]. Why? Because, it seems to be unclear (to many) if the original WWW design had Linked Data in mind all along. My claim and long standing position: The original WWW design always had Linked Data in mind, and the proof lies in the presence of fundamental Linked Data characteristics which come to life once you turn the literal relation names (denotations) into HTTP URIs, without cluttering the diagram. Remember, the rules for Linked Data publication are: 1. use URIs to name (denote) entities (things) 2. use HTTP URIs so that names can be looked-up (i.e, by HTTP URI de-reference) 3. provide useful information when HTTP URIs are looked up -- basically, this is where industry standards for data representation and access come into play (e.g., RDF and SPARQL, respectively) 4. also refer to other entities (things) using their URIs as part of the information you provide in #3. The WWW proposal diagram shows an collection of entities related is a variety of ways i.e., the links/relations are typed. Basically you have a relations property hierarchy where linksTo or connectedTo sits at the top with describes, includes, refers to are sub properties. Writing this all up in Turtle should be pretty obvious, and If need be I'll even do that too. Conclusion: The point here is not to create and endless permathread. The simple goal is to be crystal clear about Linked Data, the World Wide Web, and eventually RDF. I am singling out RDF at this point because lost in many of the fragmented threads is the fact that I am yet to have any respond with a clear lits of characteristics that are unique to RDF i.e., what makes a document distinctly RDF and nothing but that? The fact that I claim that RDF distinguishing features haven't been presented so far in no way implies: 1. that they don't exist 2. that this is some quest to replace RDF. There is only one quest here, and that is to be crystal clear about Linked Data while also being crystal clear about RDF. They both deserve clarity since conflating them remains eternally detrimental to both. Even worse, it just pushes the same old permathreads into the future. Links: 1. http://bit.ly/1aIiD0L -- directory browsing view exposing the image mapped HTML doc, jpeg, and OmniGraffle source file. 2. http://bit.ly/16v8fpR -- original WWW proposal diagram enhanced with actual live HTTP URIs (most resolve to documents that describe the URI's referent) . The original (and current) vision is expressed quite well in Tim's book, Weaving the Web. From the first pages: [[ .. the idea stayed with me that computers could become much more powerful if they could be programmed to link otherwise unconnected information. ... a vision encompassing the decentralized, organic growth of ideas, technology, and society. T*he vision I have for the Web is about anything being potentially connected with anything*. It is a vision that provides us with new freedom, and allows us to grow faster than we ever could when we were fettered by the hierarchical classification systems into which we bound ourselves. It leaves the entirety of our previous ways of working as just one tool among many. It leaves our previous fears for the future as one set among many. And it brings the workings of society closer to the workings of our minds. ]] http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm/book_number/125/weaving-the-web -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehenhttp://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/abouthttps://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehenhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Re: List membership - more women
On 24 June 2013 15:45, Bonnie MacKellar macke...@stjohns.edu wrote: Hi, ** ** I am one of the female lurkers. I am working on a project that is attempting to pull together some of the health/medical datasets. I may have posted once or twice when looking for some information. Generally, I have not posted because I wasn’t sure if there was an official organization or structure behind this list – wasn’t sure if posting would be appropriate or not. This list is relatively informal compared with some W3C groups (e.g. Working Groups). Feel free to ask questions related to your work, or share insights. You may also want to do a quick search on the open data stack exchange, to see if the topic has come up before: http://opendata.stackexchange.com/ ** ** Bonnie MacKellar macke...@stjohns.edu ** ** *From:* Dominic Oldman [mailto:do...@oldman.me.uk] *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2013 3:51 AM *To:* public-lod@w3 org *Subject:* List membership - more women ** ** Just a quick aside - I have noticed that I haven't seen any posts from women members. Is this because there aren't any, or very few? I was just wondering why that was and how we could individually, and as a group, encourage more women to contribute. I think that the list would benefit greatly from this. Dominic Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android ** **
Re: Percentages in Linked Data
Hello Dave, Thank you! I think the QUDT definition was just what I was looking for. I was aware of the QUDT vocabulary but I guess I did not expect to find percentage defined there because I did not consider it a unit. I am using multi-measure observations, but I think I can manage with not attaching the unit to the observations but to the general description of the measure property (qb:MeasureProperty), as suggested in paragraph 6.5.1 of the Data Cube vocabulary: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#dsd-mm-obs Greetings, Frans On 24-6-2013 19:32, Dave Reynolds wrote: Hi Frans, On 24/06/13 17:37, Frans Knibbe | Geodan wrote: Hello, I would like to publish some statistical data. A few of these numbers are percentages. What is the best way to make it clear to data consumers that the numbers are to be treated as percentages? As far as I can tell, the XSD data types do not suffice. QUDT does include percent as a unit: http://qudt.org/vocab/unit#Percent Assuming you are using the RDF Data Cube then you can use this as the value of unit of measure attribute (sdmx-attribute:unitMeasure). If you are dealing with single measures or measure-dimension cubes that should be fine. You are using multi-measure observations then life gets harder. In that case you might consider encoding your values as e.g. qudt:QuantityValues and attaching the unit of measure that way. Dave -- -- *Geodan* President Kennedylaan 1 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 E frans.kni...@geodan.nl www.geodan.nl http://www.geodan.nl | disclaimer http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer --
Re: Linked Data and the Original Web Proposal
On 6/24/13 4:24 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
Kingsley, how about being crystal clear of HTTP as well then? Isn't
that an implementation detail just as your understanding of RDF
within Linked Data is?
- sorry for unleashing hell again
There is not hell being unleashed. When did asking questions become a
terrible thing? In fact, HTTP is an implementation detail. Of course,
when you take into consideration that HTTP URIs lie at the core of the
World Wide Web, its most cost-effective to use this type of resolvable
URI to get going with Linked Data.
To answer you question, precisely: HTTP is an implementation detail just
like RDF and SPARQL :-)
The thing about all of this (which Ora Lassila also tried to articulate)
is the fact that ultimately, the productive way to produce *powerful*
Linked Data boils down to these implementation details:
1. HTTP URIs -- so that you don't have to write your own URI resolver
2. RDF data model -- {*I won't answer this until we make progress re. my
question about RDF's unique characteristics*}
3. SPARQL protocol based URLs -- an option for handling content
negotiation via re-write rules which is part of the Linked Data URI
lookup functionality .
Kingsley
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Melvin Carvalho
melvincarva...@gmail.com mailto:melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 June 2013 21:56, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com
mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
All,
I've taken the time to embellish TimBL's original WWW proposal
illustration with Linked Data URIs [1].
Why?
Because, it seems to be unclear (to many) if the original WWW
design had Linked Data in mind all along.
My claim and long standing position:
The original WWW design always had Linked Data in mind, and
the proof lies in the presence of fundamental Linked Data
characteristics which come to life once you turn the literal
relation names (denotations) into HTTP URIs, without
cluttering the diagram.
Remember, the rules for Linked Data publication are:
1. use URIs to name (denote) entities (things)
2. use HTTP URIs so that names can be looked-up (i.e, by HTTP
URI de-reference)
3. provide useful information when HTTP URIs are looked up --
basically, this is where industry standards for data
representation and access come into play (e.g., RDF and
SPARQL, respectively)
4. also refer to other entities (things) using their URIs as
part of the information you provide in #3.
The WWW proposal diagram shows an collection of entities
related is a variety of ways i.e., the links/relations are
typed. Basically you have a relations property hierarchy where
linksTo or connectedTo sits at the top with describes,
includes, refers to are sub properties. Writing this all
up in Turtle should be pretty obvious, and If need be I'll
even do that too.
Conclusion:
The point here is not to create and endless permathread. The
simple goal is to be crystal clear about Linked Data, the
World Wide Web, and eventually RDF.
I am singling out RDF at this point because lost in many of
the fragmented threads is the fact that I am yet to have any
respond with a clear lits of characteristics that are unique
to RDF i.e., what makes a document distinctly RDF and nothing
but that?
The fact that I claim that RDF distinguishing features haven't
been presented so far in no way implies:
1. that they don't exist
2. that this is some quest to replace RDF.
There is only one quest here, and that is to be crystal clear
about Linked Data while also being crystal clear about RDF.
They both deserve clarity since conflating them remains
eternally detrimental to both. Even worse, it just pushes the
same old permathreads into the future.
Links:
1. http://bit.ly/1aIiD0L -- directory browsing view exposing
the image mapped HTML doc, jpeg, and OmniGraffle source file.
2. http://bit.ly/16v8fpR -- original WWW proposal diagram
enhanced with actual live HTTP URIs (most resolve to documents
that describe the URI's referent) .
The original (and current) vision is expressed quite well in Tim's
book, Weaving the Web. From the first pages:
[[
.. the idea stayed with me that computers could become much more
powerful if they could be programmed to link otherwise unconnected
information.
... a vision encompassing the decentralized, organic growth of
ideas, technology, and society. T*he vision I have for the Web is
about anything being potentially connected with anything*. It is a
vision that provides us with new freedom, and allows us to grow
faster than we ever
Poll: What Are RDF's Unique Characteristics?
All, As promised, here is a simple poll [1] that seeks an answer to the question: what are RDF's unique characteristics? Links: [1] http://poll.fm/4adcd -- new poll about RDF's unique selling points or defining characteristics. [2] http://bit.ly/19m0Yhh -- older poll about biggest impediment to Linked Data adoption. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Linked Data and the Original Web Proposal
Exactly. And for me Linked Data is defined by those set of implementation
details (HTTP, RDF, URIs and SPARQL).
The only difference between my understanding and yours is that you think
that you can still produce valid Linked Data even without HTTP (using your
own URI resolver), whilst I think you can *only* use HTTP in order to call
it Linked Data.
I'm still not sure this is a beneficial message to send to newcomers. The
implementation details are at the core of defining Linked Data, because
they're actually what's making it work.
So essentially we can replace our entire RDF discussions with HTTP, and
you'd probably have the same feelings, right? That is that you HTTP isn't
*strictly* part of Linked Data's definition. I would still disagree, but I
also would understand your point and conclude it with a fair enough.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.comwrote:
On 6/24/13 4:24 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
Kingsley, how about being crystal clear of HTTP as well then? Isn't that
an implementation detail just as your understanding of RDF within Linked
Data is?
- sorry for unleashing hell again
There is not hell being unleashed. When did asking questions become a
terrible thing? In fact, HTTP is an implementation detail. Of course, when
you take into consideration that HTTP URIs lie at the core of the World
Wide Web, its most cost-effective to use this type of resolvable URI to get
going with Linked Data.
To answer you question, precisely: HTTP is an implementation detail just
like RDF and SPARQL :-)
The thing about all of this (which Ora Lassila also tried to articulate)
is the fact that ultimately, the productive way to produce *powerful*
Linked Data boils down to these implementation details:
1. HTTP URIs -- so that you don't have to write your own URI resolver
2. RDF data model -- {*I won't answer this until we make progress re. my
question about RDF's unique characteristics*}
3. SPARQL protocol based URLs -- an option for handling content
negotiation via re-write rules which is part of the Linked Data URI lookup
functionality .
Kingsley
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Melvin Carvalho
melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 June 2013 21:56, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
All,
I've taken the time to embellish TimBL's original WWW proposal
illustration with Linked Data URIs [1].
Why?
Because, it seems to be unclear (to many) if the original WWW design had
Linked Data in mind all along.
My claim and long standing position:
The original WWW design always had Linked Data in mind, and the proof
lies in the presence of fundamental Linked Data characteristics which come
to life once you turn the literal relation names (denotations) into HTTP
URIs, without cluttering the diagram.
Remember, the rules for Linked Data publication are:
1. use URIs to name (denote) entities (things)
2. use HTTP URIs so that names can be looked-up (i.e, by HTTP URI
de-reference)
3. provide useful information when HTTP URIs are looked up -- basically,
this is where industry standards for data representation and access come
into play (e.g., RDF and SPARQL, respectively)
4. also refer to other entities (things) using their URIs as part of the
information you provide in #3.
The WWW proposal diagram shows an collection of entities related is a
variety of ways i.e., the links/relations are typed. Basically you have a
relations property hierarchy where linksTo or connectedTo sits at the
top with describes, includes, refers to are sub properties. Writing
this all up in Turtle should be pretty obvious, and If need be I'll even do
that too.
Conclusion:
The point here is not to create and endless permathread. The simple goal
is to be crystal clear about Linked Data, the World Wide Web, and
eventually RDF.
I am singling out RDF at this point because lost in many of the
fragmented threads is the fact that I am yet to have any respond with a
clear lits of characteristics that are unique to RDF i.e., what makes a
document distinctly RDF and nothing but that?
The fact that I claim that RDF distinguishing features haven't been
presented so far in no way implies:
1. that they don't exist
2. that this is some quest to replace RDF.
There is only one quest here, and that is to be crystal clear about
Linked Data while also being crystal clear about RDF. They both deserve
clarity since conflating them remains eternally detrimental to both. Even
worse, it just pushes the same old permathreads into the future.
Links:
1. http://bit.ly/1aIiD0L -- directory browsing view exposing the image
mapped HTML doc, jpeg, and OmniGraffle source file.
2. http://bit.ly/16v8fpR -- original WWW proposal diagram enhanced with
actual live HTTP URIs (most resolve to documents that describe the URI's
referent) .
The original (and current) vision is expressed quite well in Tim's
book, Weaving the Web. From the first
Re: Poll: What Are RDF's Unique Characteristics?
On 24 Jun 2013, at 21:52, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: All, As promised, here is a simple poll [1] that seeks an answer to the question: what are RDF's unique characteristics? The poll says Distinguishing, not unique. I think these are quite different. Are you going to infer the answer to your question from the poll results? Cheers Hugh Links: [1] http://poll.fm/4adcd -- new poll about RDF's unique selling points or defining characteristics. [2] http://bit.ly/19m0Yhh -- older poll about biggest impediment to Linked Data adoption. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Re: RDF Investigations
Kingsley, Let me give a shot to your question about the unique characteristics of RDF 1) RDF is based on the idea that the things being described have properties which have values, and that resources can be described by making statements 2) A Statement is modeled as a Triple (mathematically a model for a directed labeled edge). The set of triples makes a directed labeled graph. * The part that identifies the thing the statement is about (a web resource Web page document or a concept such as an Event, Place etc..) is called the subject. * The part that identifies the property or characteristic of the subject that the statement specifies (creator, creation-date, or language in these examples) is called the predicate. The predicate is the label of an directed arc from the subject node to the object node. * and the part that identifies the value of that property is called the object. 3) There are three kinds of nodes in RDF model (IRI, Blank Node and Literal (which can be plain or plain with a language or typed with a datatype). 4) RDF specification uses Web Identifiers based on IRI specification 5) RDF provides a mechanism to make statement about Statement: (reification) 6) RDF introduces concepts of Collection and Container (rdf:List (closed and ordered), rdf:Bag (open, unordered), rdf:Alt (alternative semantic), rdf:Seq (ordered)). 8) RDF is syntax-independent and could be serialized into different formats as long as these formats are isomorphic to RDF model. My list is not exhaustive, but I hope I captured the essence of the data model. Best regards Stephane On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.comwrote: On 6/24/13 3:52 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: On 6/24/13 10:32 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: If you can give up on all this, what do you take yourself to be referring to when you say RDF ? You have just dismissed virtually every defining characteristic of RDF as either wrong or inessential. So what is left? Pat I am going to create a poll aimed as getting a feel for what folks perceive as the defining characteristics of RDF. In recent times, I've come to believe those characteristics aren't so clear anymore. Kingsley, Kingsley, Kingsley, you old thread hijacker you. ;) Best of luck, but for the record, I don't have a dog in that fight. As far as I'm concerned people can use RDF to mean whatever they want it to mean, as long as the software works. -Gregg Gregg, There is an issue here that for whatever reasons simply keeps on getting lost. The question is simple: what are the unique characteristics of RDF? What does RDF do uniquely? I actually believe RDF does have unique characteristics, but I am curious to see if mine are in alignment with views of others. I really don't want RDF to become something that's based on a leap of faith, we can do much better than that :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehenhttp://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/abouthttps://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehenhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Re: Poll: What Are RDF's Unique Characteristics?
second link give me an Access denied. You must be logged in to see that page. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.comwrote: All, As promised, here is a simple poll [1] that seeks an answer to the question: what are RDF's unique characteristics? Links: [1] http://poll.fm/4adcd -- new poll about RDF's unique selling points or defining characteristics. [2] http://bit.ly/19m0Yhh -- older poll about biggest impediment to Linked Data adoption. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehenhttp://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/abouthttps://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehenhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen -- --- Marco Neumann KONA
Re: Linked Data and the Original Web Proposal
On 6/24/13 5:29 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
Exactly. And for me Linked Data is defined by those set of
implementation details (HTTP, RDF, URIs and SPARQL).
And that's absolutely fine. Nothing wrong with that. You only hit issues
if you mandate that to someone who seeks to pursue the same goal using a
different approach etc..
The challenge here is that everyone doesn't see things the same way,
initially.
The only difference between my understanding and yours is that you
think that you can still produce valid Linked Data even without HTTP
(using your own URI resolver), whilst I think you can *only* use HTTP
in order to call it Linked Data.
I am not thinking or speculating. I can produce Linked Data using
alternative URI schemes based on our own handcrafted resolvers. Of
course, custom URI handlers aren't the norm on desktops but that's the
lay of the land in the mobile space i.e., you can register a custom URI
handler with the host OS and it will then delegate handling to your
custom resolver.
I'm still not sure this is a beneficial message to send to newcomers.
I believe in adjusting to the needs of the audience (newcomer or
advanced users). I don't believe in being draconian pathways to a
destination when choices exist. More than anything else, the new stuff
has to work with what exists i.e., do as much as possible to avert
telling customers to rip and replace what they have en route to Linked
Data exploitation.
The implementation details are at the core of defining Linked Data,
because they're actually what's making it work.
They ultimately make it work productively, most of the time. There are
times when alternative routes have to be taken to the destination -- due
to the realities of legacy IT infrastructure.
So essentially we can replace our entire RDF discussions with HTTP,
and you'd probably have the same feelings, right? That is that you
HTTP isn't *strictly* part of Linked Data's definition. I would still
disagree, but I also would understand your point and conclude it with
a fair enough.
Yes, I think you are understanding me much better now. I am just about
puzzle pieces and jigsaw puzzles.
My company makes and designs data management data access middleware
products, which is why (in our eyes) the architecture of the Web remains
the most dexterous piece of middleware we've encountered to date :-)
Kingsley
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.com mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 6/24/13 4:24 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
Kingsley, how about being crystal clear of HTTP as well then?
Isn't that an implementation detail just as your understanding
of RDF within Linked Data is?
- sorry for unleashing hell again
There is not hell being unleashed. When did asking questions
become a terrible thing? In fact, HTTP is an implementation
detail. Of course, when you take into consideration that HTTP URIs
lie at the core of the World Wide Web, its most cost-effective to
use this type of resolvable URI to get going with Linked Data.
To answer you question, precisely: HTTP is an implementation
detail just like RDF and SPARQL :-)
The thing about all of this (which Ora Lassila also tried to
articulate) is the fact that ultimately, the productive way to
produce *powerful* Linked Data boils down to these implementation
details:
1. HTTP URIs -- so that you don't have to write your own URI resolver
2. RDF data model -- {*I won't answer this until we make progress
re. my question about RDF's unique characteristics*}
3. SPARQL protocol based URLs -- an option for handling content
negotiation via re-write rules which is part of the Linked Data
URI lookup functionality .
Kingsley
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Melvin Carvalho
melvincarva...@gmail.com mailto:melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 June 2013 21:56, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.com mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
All,
I've taken the time to embellish TimBL's original WWW
proposal illustration with Linked Data URIs [1].
Why?
Because, it seems to be unclear (to many) if the original
WWW design had Linked Data in mind all along.
My claim and long standing position:
The original WWW design always had Linked Data in mind,
and the proof lies in the presence of fundamental Linked
Data characteristics which come to life once you turn the
literal relation names (denotations) into HTTP URIs,
without cluttering the diagram.
Remember, the rules for Linked Data publication are:
1. use URIs to name (denote) entities (things)
2. use HTTP URIs so that names can be looked-up (i.e, by
HTTP URI de-reference)
3. provide useful information
Re: Poll: What Are RDF's Unique Characteristics?
On 6/24/13 5:44 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: On 24 Jun 2013, at 21:52, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: All, As promised, here is a simple poll [1] that seeks an answer to the question: what are RDF's unique characteristics? The poll says Distinguishing, not unique. I think these are quite different. Are you going to infer the answer to your question from the poll results? Sorta. I can change the questions if they are confusing. Nothing is cast in stone bar the goal of isolating (via responses) the collection of characteristics that are unique to RDF. Each question is a collection of one or more characteristics. Anyway, I'll double check the poll. Kingsley Cheers Hugh Links: [1] http://poll.fm/4adcd -- new poll about RDF's unique selling points or defining characteristics. [2] http://bit.ly/19m0Yhh -- older poll about biggest impediment to Linked Data adoption. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
CfP (Deadline extended) - 3rd international Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives (SDA 2013)
Apologies for cross-posting. Please forward to interested parties. *** Deadline extended! --- Call for Papers 3rd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives (SDA) in conjunction with the 17th Int. Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL) 26th September 2013 in Valetta, Malta http://sda2013.dke-research.de --- OBJECTIVES: The Semantic Digital Archives (SDA) workshop series fosters innovative discussion of knowledge representation and knowledge management solutions specifically designed for improving Archival Information Systems (AISs). Novel applications of semantic Web technologies and Linked Data offer possibilities to advance approaches to digital curation and preservation. During the last quarter of a century the explosion in digital content creation and use has transformed the relationship individuals and society have with information. Therefore, sustainable long-term curation approaches to our digital cultural heritage are essential. Handling digital content in secure ways poses many socio-cultural and technological challenges. Changing technologies and shifting user communities as well as the increasing complexity of digital content being enriched with software and multimedia attachments are a couple of examples. Addressing the obstacles to curation and preservation is the central theme of the workshop. This full day workshop is an exciting opportunity for collaboration and cross-fertilization between the Digital Libraries, the Digital Preservation and the Semantic Web community. A closer dialogue between the technical oriented communities and researchers from the (digital) humanities and social sciences as well as cultural heritage institutions is encouraged. TOPICS OF INTEREST: We intend to have an open discussion on topics related to the general subject of Semantic Digital Archives. Hence, we welcome contributions that focus on, but are not limited to: * Archival information systems (AIS) * AIS Architectures * Archival information infrastructure frameworks (AII) * Ontologies linked data for AIS, AII and digital libraries * Logical theories for digital archives digital preservation * Knowledge evolution * (Semantic) provenance models * Contextualization of archives * Semantic long-term storage hardware organization for AIS AII * Semantic extensions of emulation/virtualization methodologies tailored for AIS/AII * Semantic multimedia AIS, AII multimedia libraries * Implementations evaluations of (semantic) AIS, AII semantic digital libraries * Preservation of scientific and research data * Preservation of work flow processes * Semantic search semantic information retrieval in digital archives and digital libraries * Implementations and evaluations of semantic digital archives * User studies focusing on end-user needs and information seeking behavior of end-users (document triage) * Web Archives * (Semantic) Preservation Processes and Protocols * Semantic (Web) services implementing AIS AII * Information integration/semantic ingest (e.g. from digital libraries) * Trust for ingest data security/integrity check for long-term storage of archival records * Semantic extensions of emulation/virtualization methodologies for digital archives * Migration strategies based on Semantic Web technologies Submission Details SUBMISSION DETAILS: Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers related to the aforementioned topics. We invite: * regular papers (8 to 12 pages) * short papers (2 to 6 pages) All submissions are required to be in PDF format. Long and short paper submissions must be formatted according to Springer’s LNCS format (www.springer.com/computer/lncs). Please submit your manuscript using the EasyChair online submission system:https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sda2013 All submissions will be reviewed by three members of the Program Committee. All papers accepted at the Semantic Digital Archives Workshop must be presented during the Workshop by a SDA Workshop registered participant. Papers presented at the Workshop will be published in the Workshop proceedings, which will be available as a separate publication after the Workshop. IMPORTANT DATES: * Deadline for submissions: July 7, 2013 * Acceptance Notification: July 28, 2013 * Camera-ready papers: August 25, 2013 * Workshop: September 26, 2013 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE PROGRAM COMMITTEE: The Organizing Committee members and the Program Committee members are mentioned at http://sda2013.dke-research.de/index.php/committees Further Details: http://sda2013.dke-research.de
Re: Poll: What Are RDF's Unique Characteristics?
On 6/24/13 5:54 PM, Marco Neumann wrote: second link give me an Access denied.. You must be logged in to see that page. Thanks for spotting that. Let me double check. Kingsley On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: All, As promised, here is a simple poll [1] that seeks an answer to the question: what are RDF's unique characteristics? Links: [1] http://poll.fm/4adcd -- new poll about RDF's unique selling points or defining characteristics. [2] http://bit.ly/19m0Yhh -- older poll about biggest impediment to Linked Data adoption. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen -- --- Marco Neumann KONA -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Contd: Poll: What Are RDF's Unique Characteristics?
On 6/24/13 5:54 PM, Marco Neumann wrote: second link give me an Access denied.. You must be logged in to see that page. Alternative Link: http://bit.ly/SqOUTu . Kingsley On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: All, As promised, here is a simple poll [1] that seeks an answer to the question: what are RDF's unique characteristics? Links: [1] http://poll.fm/4adcd -- new poll about RDF's unique selling points or defining characteristics. [2] http://bit.ly/19m0Yhh -- older poll about biggest impediment to Linked Data adoption. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen -- --- Marco Neumann KONA -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Job: Post-doctoral Researchers / Research Group Leaders at Uni Bonn / Fraunhofer IAIS
***Post-doctoral Researchers / Research Group Leaders*** at Uni Bonn / Fraunhofer IAIS The department Enterprise Information Systems (EIS) [1] at the Institute for Applied Computer Science [2] at University of Bonn [3] and Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems (IAIS) [4] is currently being established. We are looking for candidates aiming to take the challenge to contribute to building up an international research and innovation group in the area of enterprise information systems and semantic technologies. The ideal candidate holds a doctoral degree in Computer Science or a related field and is able to combine theoretical and practical aspects in her work. The candidate is expected to build up her own research group and should ideally have experience with: publications in renowned venues, software engineering, supervision of students, collaboration with other research groups, industry, NGOs as well as open-source and community initiatives, competing for funding, transfer and commercialization of research results. All details can be found at: http://eis.iai.uni-bonn.de/ We provide an scientifically and intellectually inspiring environment with an entrepreneurial mindset embedded in a world-leading university and one of the largest research organizations (Fraunhofer). Our primary aim is to provide the environment and resources to make the research group leaders successful in their field. Bonn, the city on the banks of the Rhine River, former German capital located right next to Germany's fourth largest city Cologne offers an outstanding quality of life, developed into a hub of international cooperation and is in easy reach of many European metropoles (e.g. Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris and Frankfurt). Please indicate your willingness to apply as soon as possible with a short email to a...@cs.uni-bonn.de [1] http://eis.iai.uni-bonn.de/ [2] http://www.iai.uni-bonn.de/ [3] http://www.uni-bonn.de/ [4] http://www.iais.fraunhofer.de/
Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
On 24 June 2013 14:31, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: On 6/24/13 2:14 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: Hello Kingsley Idehen, On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 05:32:00PM -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: We don't need a central repository of anything. Linked Data is supposed to be about enhancing serendipitous discovery of relevant things. You appear to be arguing against the simple useful practice of communally collecting information. Just because we can scatter information around the Web and subsequently aggregate it, doesn't mean that such fragmentation is always productive. I don't see anyone arguing that the only option is to monolithically centralise everything forever; just that a communal effort on cataloguing things might be worth the time. Google already demonstrates some of this, in the most obvious sense via its search engine, and no so obvious via its crawling of Linked Data which then makes its way Google Knowledge Graph and G+ etc.. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_needed You've sometimes said that all Web pages are already Linked Data with boring link-types. Are you talking about something more RDFish in this case? Dan
Re: Poll: What Are RDF's Unique Characteristics?
Hi Kingsley, On 24 Jun 2013, at 22:59, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: On 6/24/13 5:44 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: On 24 Jun 2013, at 21:52, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: All, As promised, here is a simple poll [1] that seeks an answer to the question: what are RDF's unique characteristics? The poll says Distinguishing, not unique. I think these are quite different. Are you going to infer the answer to your question from the poll results? Sorta. I can change the questions if they are confusing. I'm not sure I understand. You aren't saying you will change the questions after they have been answered, I am guessing. So should we read the poll as it says, Distinguishing, or is it something else, such as Unique? By the way, you do know that polldaddy lets people vote a lot of times, don't you? Cheers Hugh Nothing is cast in stone bar the goal of isolating (via responses) the collection of characteristics that are unique to RDF. Each question is a collection of one or more characteristics. Anyway, I'll double check the poll. Kingsley Cheers Hugh Links: [1] http://poll.fm/4adcd -- new poll about RDF's unique selling points or defining characteristics. [2] http://bit.ly/19m0Yhh -- older poll about biggest impediment to Linked Data adoption. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
W3C RDF Validation Workshop submissions due in 1 week.
W3C's hosting a workshop on interface definitions for RDF data. If you want to tell users how to use some RDF service, or find out how to use an existing service, you need some mechanism for defining interfaces. If you then want to mechanically complete client data or validate graphs posted to a service, you need a tool which exploits that mechanism. In either case, please help us meet your needs by submitting use cases and proposals to the W3C RDF Validation Workshop. If you've got great ideas for languages or re-use of existing tools to solve these sorts of use cases, you may want to submit those as well. Please read through the CFP and send any questions or comments to me (e...@w3.org) or the PC (group-rdf-val...@w3.org). If you think this should go to other lists, please forward. Thanks! RDF Validation Workshop - Practical Assurances for Quality RDF Data 10-11 September 2013, Cambridge, MA, USA http://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val/ While the Semantic Web has demonstrated considerable value for collaborative contributions to data, adoption in many mission-critical environments requires data to conform to specified patterns. This need for interface defintions spans domains. For instance, validation in a banking context shares many requirements with quality assurance of linked clinical data. Systems like Linked Open Data, which don't have formal interface specifications, share these validation needs. Development of standards and tools to meet these requirements can greatly increase the utility and ubiquity of Semantic Web data. Most data representation languages used in conventional settings offer some sort of input validation, ranging from parsing grammars for domain-specific languages to XML Schema, RelaxNG or Schematron for XML structures. While the distributed nature of RDF affects the notions of validity, tool chains need to be established to publish interface definitions and ensure data integrity. This workshop combines discussion of use cases for data validation/interface defintion on the Semantic Web with development of technologies to enable those use cases. If you are interested in presenting, please submit a position paper by 30 June 2013. If you need a short extension, please contact the PC. See additional Workshop details and submission instructions: http://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val/participate.php The workshop is hosted by MIT. For further details, please contact Eric Prud'hommeaux e...@w3.org -- -ericP
Re: Poll: What Are RDF's Unique Characteristics?
On 6/24/13 7:12 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: Hi Kingsley, On 24 Jun 2013, at 22:59, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: On 6/24/13 5:44 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: On 24 Jun 2013, at 21:52, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: All, As promised, here is a simple poll [1] that seeks an answer to the question: what are RDF's unique characteristics? The poll says Distinguishing, not unique. I think these are quite different. Are you going to infer the answer to your question from the poll results? Sorta. I can change the questions if they are confusing. I'm not sure I understand. You aren't saying you will change the questions after they have been answered, I am guessing. No. So should we read the poll as it says, Distinguishing, or is it something else, such as Unique? I want to stick with Distinguishing i.e., which one of these characteristics distinguishes RDF from anything else. By the way, you do know that polldaddy lets people vote a lot of times, don't you? It has some checks against multiple votes. Also note, I have no problem stopping an restarting this poll if is there are questions anyone feels should be added. My immediate priority is actually getting the right questions in place. Kingsley Cheers Hugh Nothing is cast in stone bar the goal of isolating (via responses) the collection of characteristics that are unique to RDF. Each question is a collection of one or more characteristics. Anyway, I'll double check the poll. Kingsley Cheers Hugh Links: [1] http://poll.fm/4adcd -- new poll about RDF's unique selling points or defining characteristics. [2] http://bit.ly/19m0Yhh -- older poll about biggest impediment to Linked Data adoption. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications
On 6/24/13 7:00 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: On 24 June 2013 14:31, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: On 6/24/13 2:14 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: Hello Kingsley Idehen, On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 05:32:00PM -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: We don't need a central repository of anything. Linked Data is supposed to be about enhancing serendipitous discovery of relevant things. You appear to be arguing against the simple useful practice of communally collecting information. I am not. Just because we can scatter information around the Web and subsequently aggregate it, doesn't mean that such fragmentation is always productive. The simple use of communally collecting information can be varied. To date, only one pattern has been explored with the same results. I am simply suggestion an additional approach. I am never one to propose silver bullets since at the core of most of my suggestions lies a preference for multiplicity, flexibility, and choice. I don't see anyone arguing that the only option is to monolithically centralise everything forever; just that a communal effort on cataloguing things might be worth the time. It has been worth some time, but it always becomes stale. I am suggesting we add other approaches that haven't been tried to the mix. If everyone simply describes their products, services, and platforms using Linked Data documents we will more than likely realizes that we can dog-food our way to solving an important and thorny problem. Google already demonstrates some of this, in the most obvious sense via its search engine, and no so obvious via its crawling of Linked Data which then makes its way Google Knowledge Graph and G+ etc.. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_needed Google has been crawling DBpedia for years (we do have the logs). I am sure you've seen the technical reports we produce re. DBpedia [1][2]. I am sure you know that cannot be a secret since we do publish HTML docs amongst other formats. It also has Linked Data published via Freebase which I posted a note about re. deconstruction of the obscured Linked Data URI [3]. You've sometimes said that all Web pages are already Linked Data with boring link-types. Are you talking about something more RDFish in this case? Yes. I am saying, let's dog-food i.e., use the technology we are asking the world to adopt etc.. Dan Links: 1. http://bit.ly/Vie2aB -- DBpedia 3.8 technical report. 2. http://bit.ly/RieuZg -- older report. 3. http://bit.ly/LFt9al -- Deconstructing Google Knowledge Graph URIs (note: we'll have an updated unscrambler of these GKG URIs later this week via a new cartridge/wrapper). -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: RDF Investigations
On Jun 24, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Hi, and thanks for the comments. FYI I have some draft articles in the can that will add clarity and detail, I hope. In the meantime ... On Jun 23, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: Hi folks, A couple of years ago I got the idea of finding alternatives to the official definition of RDF, especially the semantics. I've always found the official docs less than crystal clear, and have always harbored the suspicion that the model-theoretic definition of RDF semantics offered in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ was unnecessary, or at least unnecessarily complicated. Needless to say that is my own personal aesthetic judgment, but it did motivate my little project. I guess the past two years have not been completely wasted on me; what was a somewhat vague intuition back then seems to have matured into a pretty clear idea of how RDF ought to be conceptualized and formally defined. Clear to me, anyway; whether it is to others, and whether it is correct or not is a whole 'nother matter. Since pursuing this idea will involve a lot of writing I won't pursue it here; instead I've described the the basic ideas in a blog post at http://blog.mobileink.com/. Hmm. You say some things in there that seem to be just plain wrong. 1. [The RDF semantics] restricts interpretation to a single semantic domain. I am not sure how you can possibly read the semantics in this way, but the whole point of model theory is to permit many - usually, infinitely many - interpretations, over arbitrary domains. The only domain restriction in RDF (as in most model theories) is that the domain be non-empty and that it contain basic literal values such as character strings. Point taken. My statement was incorrect and needs to be changed; the point I was trying to get at is that RDF-MT seems to privilege the domain it defines - the set IR of Resources, etc. Well, its a formal, artificial, language, and it comes with a semantics as part of its definition. Just like many other logics in many logic textbooks, many programming languages, etc.. So yes, I guess it does privilege that semantics, since that semantics is part of it (by definition). The basic semantic constraints are stated in terms of this domain, which implicitly restricts semantic domains to those that have, for example, a set of binary relations for the properties. But this is not necessary; you can define models that do not contain such relations. You *can* (re)define RDF graphs to be a musical notation, or a way of drawing simple cartoons. So what? An obvious example is a set of objects N and the set of their triples NxNxN. (I'll describe this in more detail in a later blog article). Have you checked out the mapping from RDF to FOL mentioned in passing in the 2004 Semantics document? It maps an RDF triple S P O to the atomic sentence triple(S, P, O). You might find it congenial. 2. The so-called abstract syntax described in RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax serves as the formula calculus, but it is incomplete. It specifies that a triple (statement) contains three terms (nodes), and that an RDF graph is a set of triples. But these are not rules of a calculus; they do not tell us how to construct statements in a formal language. First, the whole point of defining an 'abstract' syntax is to allow for a variety of concrete (lexical) syntaxes, so if you prefer to work at a concrete level, just choose one of those, eg RDF/XML or N-Triples. It just dawned on me that when people talk about the abstract syntax of RDF in this manner what they often mean is abstract description of possible syntax (or set of syntaxes). Is that a fair description of what you have in mind? That is one way to read it, but what I had in mind in using the term abstract syntax was the way it is used by John McCarthy (who coined the term originally), as syntax re-described as an algebra on terms and expressions. RDF uses graphs since its syntax is so extremely simple that it does not actually require any algebraic structure, but the basic idea is the same. I can't see any other way to read it, since by definition what is abstract cannot be written down, and if you cannot write it down you may be able to think about it but you cannot use it to communicate. It is a structure (the graph) which can be described and its properties given precisely, and it can be directly represented in computer memory as a datastructure. That is enough to make it a syntax as far as I am concerned. What it is not, is a grammar defined on character strings. Concrete RDF syntaxes like RDF/XML and NTriples can be described this way, of course (though for XML, better ways are available.) You can publish a document that describes a class of syntaxes abstractly, but you cannot publish and abstract
Re: What Does Point Number 3 of TimBL's Linked Data Mean?
On 06/22/2013 04:47 AM, Nathan Rixham wrote: What it means now, or at any point in time, must be inclusive to new in-development or in-use things, other wise it will never mean anything else later down the line. If you want it to mean a very specific set of things at any one time, then take Linked Data down the standardization path and give it fixed versions which are RECs. I don't see anybody saying don't use RDF or RDF is a bad idea for Linked Data, use Y instead. I just see some people inferring that RDF precludes all other things, and other people saying why should it preclude everything else? RDF does not *preclude* anything else. Documents can certainly be both RDF *and* something else, such as JSON or XML or HTML. In fact, as long as a standard mapping to the RDF model is available, *any* document format can be interpreted as RDF. The problem is that some people are claiming that RDF is not a *necessary* component of Linked Data. If you take Linked Data to simply mean data that is linked, then of course RDF is not necessary. But if you take the term to refer to the Semantic Web done right or something similar that is intended to support the goals of the Semantic Web -- as most of us apparently do -- then RDF is currently *necessary*, because the Semantic Web relies on having a standard, universal data model to enable applications to automatically meaningfully combine independently created data. Think about it. How else could applications automatically meaningfully combine independently created data without having special out-of-band information about that data? Without a standard universal data model each application would have to understand *all* of the data models used by any of the data sources that it may wish to access -- a massive data integration problem. A key insight of the Semantic Web architecture is that by adopting a *standard* universal data model, this integration problem can be dramatically simplified for applications that wish to combine Web data: instead of having to understand N data models, the application only needs to understand *one*, regardless of the data sources. To whatever extent you depart from using *one* universal data model, you are departing from that central vision of the Semantic Web, just as to whatever extent you depart from using *one* universal identification scheme -- URIs -- you are departing from the central vision of the regular Web and creating walled gardens -- just like in the days before the Web. Can Semantic-Web-ish applications be built that understand the multiple universal data models used by those walled gardens (and internally unify them into their own private data models)? Of course. But that is the *opposite* of what the Semantic Web is all about. The Semantic Web is not about building applications that are so smart that they can understand a plethora of different data models. It is about enabling applications that are so *stupid* that they don't *have* to understand a plethora of different data models. ps: I'd be very wary about saying that any web tech is .. *the* universal .., many of them are Uniform, non are truly universal,even within their specific domains, I beg to differ. URIs (or their extension, IRIs) -- the standard universal identification scheme for the Web -- are so fundamental to the Web, that IMO if you do not have URIs you do not have the Web. URIs are what make it *the* Web, as opposed to a collection of fiefdoms, which is what the Internet was before TimBL invented the Web. and any such claims will always be disagreed with by somebody as they are always untrue claims and alternatives always exist. Really? Can you show me an existing alternative to URIs, that you can write on the side of a bus and 20 strangers can read and, within 30 seconds, all view the same document? Similarly, can you show me an existing alternative to RDF, that allows applications to automatically meaningfully combine independently authored data, without out-of-band knowledge of that data? Perhaps alternatives to URIs and RDF exist in theory, but I have not seen them in practice. In short, if a document does not have a URI, it is not on the Web. Similarly, if data is not standards-interpretable as RDF, it is not Semantic Web data, and hence it is not what most of us would call Linked Data. David Booth
