Ethan, thanks, it's good to have examples.
I'd say that for simple linking SPARQL may not be necessary, perhaps
should be avoided, but IF you need something ELSE, say a query WHERE you
have conditions, THEN you may find that a query language is needed.
kc
On 11/6/13 9:14 AM, Ethan Gruber
Ross, I think you are not alone, as per this:
http://howfuckedismydatabase.com/nosql/
kc
On 11/6/13 8:54 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
Hey Karen,
It's purely anecdotal (albeit anecdotes borne from working at a company
that offered, and has since abandoned, a sparql-based triple store
service), but
Karen,
The URIs you gave get me to webpages *about* the Declaration of
Independence. I'm sure it's just a copy/paste mistake, but in this context
you want the exact right URIs of course. And by better I guess you meant
probably more widely used and probably longer lasting? :)
LOC URI for the DoI
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Ben Companjen
ben.compan...@dans.knaw.nl wrote:
The URIs you gave get me to webpages *about* the Declaration of
Independence. I'm sure it's just a copy/paste mistake, but in this context
you want the exact right URIs of course. And by better I guess you meant
Yes, I'm going to get sucked into this vi vs emacs argument for nostalgia's
sake...
ROTFL, because that is exactly what I was thinking. “Vi is better. No, emacs.
You are both wrong; it is all about BBedit!” Each tool whether they be editors,
email clients, or RDF serializations all have their
Ben, Yes, I copied from the browser URIs, and that was sloppy. However,
it was the quickest thing to do, plus it was addressed to a human, not a
machine. The URI for the LC entry is there on the page. Unfortunately,
the VIAF URI is called Permalink -- which isn't obvious.
I guess if I want
I could have known it was a test! ;)
Thanks Karen :)
On 06-11-13 15:20, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote:
I guess if I want anyone to answer my emails, I need to post mistakes.
I wrote about this a few months back at
http://blogs.library.duke.edu/dcthree/2013/07/27/the-trouble-with-triples/
I'd be very interested to hear what the smart folks here think!
Hugh
On Nov 5, 2013, at 18:28 , Alexander Johannesen
alexander.johanne...@gmail.com wrote:
But the
question to
In the kinds of data I have to deal with, who made an assertion, or what
sources provide evidence for a statement are vitally important bits of
information, so its not just a data-source integration problem, where you're
taking batches of triples from different sources and putting them
Hugh, I don't think you're in the weeds with your question (and, while I
think that named graphs can provide a solution to your particular problem,
that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't raise more questions or
potentially more frustrations down the line - like any new power, it can be
used
Ross, I agree with your statement that data doesn't have to be RDF all
the way down, etc. But I'd like to hear more about why you think SPARQL
availability has less value, and if you see an alternative to SPARQL for
querying.
kc
On 11/6/13 8:11 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
Hugh, I don't think
The answer is purely because the RDF data model and the technology around it
looks like it would almost do what we need it to.
I do not, and cannot, assume a closed world. The open world assumption is one
of the attractive things about RDF, in fact :-)
Hugh
On Nov 6, 2013, at 11:11 , Ross
Hey Karen,
It's purely anecdotal (albeit anecdotes borne from working at a company
that offered, and has since abandoned, a sparql-based triple store
service), but I just don't see the interest in arbitrary SPARQL queries
against remote datasets that I do against linking to (and grabbing) known
Hugh, I'm skeptical of this in a usable application or interface.
Applications have constraints. There are predicates you care about, there
are values you display in specific ways. There are expectations, based on
the domain, in the data that are either driven by the interface or the
needs of
I think that the answer to #1 is that if you want or expect people to use
your endpoint that you should document how it works: the ontologies, the
models, and a variety of example SPARQL queries, ranging from simple to
complex. The British Museum's SPARQL endpoint (
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Eric Lease Morgan emor...@nd.edu wrote:
This is hard. The Semantic Web (and RDF) attempt at codifying knowledge using
a strict syntax, specifically a strict syntax of triples. It is very
difficult for humans to articulate knowledge, let alone codifying it. How
On 11/5/13 6:45 AM, Ed Summers wrote:
I'm with Ross though:
... and Karen!
I find it much to read rdf as turtle or json-ld than it is rdf/xml.
It's easier to read, but it's also easier to create *correctly*, and
that, to me, is the key point. Folks who are used to XML have a certain
FWIW,
Here’s the W3C’s RDF Primer with examples in turtle instead of RDF/XML:
http://www.w3.org/2007/02/turtle/primer/
And the turtle spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/
Aaron
On Nov 5, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote:
On 11/5/13 6:45 AM, Ed Summers wrote:
I'm with
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote:
I have suggested (repeatedly) to LC on the BIBFRAME list that they should
use turtle rather than RDF/XML in their examples -- because I suspect that
they may be doing some XML think in the background. This seems to be the
: [CODE4LIB] rdf serialization
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Eric Lease Morgan emor...@nd.edu wrote:
This is hard. The Semantic Web (and RDF) attempt at codifying knowledge using
a strict syntax, specifically a strict syntax of triples. It is very
difficult for humans to articulate knowledge
Eric, I found an even better URI for you for the Declaration of
Independence:
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79029194.html
Now that could be seen as being representative of the name chosen by the
LC Name Authority, but the related VIAF record, as per the VIAF
definition of itself,
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Eric Lease Morgan emor...@nd.edu wrote:
This is hard. The Semantic Web (and RDF) attempt at codifying knowledge
using a strict syntax, specifically a strict syntax of triples. It is very
Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
This is definitely where RDF outclasses almost every alternative*, because
each serialization (besides RDF/XML) works extremely well for specific
purposes [...]
Hmm. That depends on what you mean by alternative to RDF
serialisation. I can think of a
Yes, I'm going to get sucked into this vi vs emacs argument for nostalgia's
sake.
From the linked, very outdated article:
In fact, as far as I know I've never used an RDF application, nor do I
know of any that make me want to use them. So what's wrong with this
picture?
a) Nothing. You
Hi,
Robert Sanderson azarot...@gmail.com wrote:
c) I've never used a Topic Maps application. (and see (a))
How do you know?
There /are/ challenges with RDF [...]
But for the vast majority of cases, the problems are solved (JSON-LD) or no
one cares any more (httpRange14).
What are you
And yet for the last 50 years they've been creating MARC?
For the last 20, they've been making EAD, TEI, etc?
As with any of these, there is an expectation that end users will not be
hand rolling machine readable serializations, but inputting into
interfaces.
That is not to say there aren't
Eric,
I can't help but think that part of your problem is that you're using
RDF/XML, which definitely makes it harder to understand and visualize the
data model.
It might help if you switched to an RDF native serialization, like Turtle,
which definitely helps with regards to seeing RDF.
-Ross.
I am of two minds when it comes to Linked Data and the Semantic Web.
Libraries and many other professions have been encoding things for a long time,
but encoding the description of a book (MARC) or marking up texts (TEI), is not
the same as encoding knowledge — a goal of the Semantic Web. The
On 11/3/13 12:45 PM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
Cool input. Thank you. I believe I have tweaked my assertions:
1. The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson
rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#;
xmlns:dc=http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/;
+1.
kc
On 11/4/13 3:40 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
Eric,
I can't help but think that part of your problem is that you're using
RDF/XML, which definitely makes it harder to understand and visualize the
data model.
It might help if you switched to an RDF native serialization, like Turtle,
which
+1! Well said, Karen.
I would add (to further abuse your metaphor) that it’s also possible to make a
delicious dish with simple ingredients. With minimal knowledge, most
non-computer science-y folks can cook up some structured data in RDF, maybe
encoded in RDFa and deliver it on the same HTML
In general, people do not think very systematically nor very logically. We
are humans full of ambiguity, feelings, and perceptions If we — as a
whole — have this difficulty, then how can we expect to capture and encode
data, information, and knowledge with the rigor that a computer
Hiya,
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote:
Eric, I really don't see how RDF or linked data is any more difficult to
grasp than a database design
Well, there's at least one thing which makes people tilt; the flexible
structures for semantics (or, ontologies) in
Hi Eric,
Complex ideas that span multiple triples are often expressed through SPARQL. In
other words, you store a soup of triple statements and the SPARQL query
traverses the triples and presents the resulting information in a variety of
formats, much in the same way you’d query a database
Cool input. Thank you. I believe I have tweaked my assertions:
1. The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson
rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#;
xmlns:dc=http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/;
rdf:Description
You're still missing a vital step.
Currently your assertion is that the creator /of a web page/ is Jefferson,
which is clearly false.
The page (...) is a transcription of the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence is written by Jefferson.
Jefferson is Male.
And it's not
On Nov 3, 2013, at 6:07 PM, Robert Sanderson azarot...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently your assertion is that the creator /of a web page/ is Jefferson,
which is clearly false.
The page (...) is a transcription of the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence is written by
On Nov 3, 2013, at 6:07 PM, Robert Sanderson azarot...@gmail.com wrote:
And it's not very hard given the right mindset -- its just a fully expanded
relational database, where the identifiers are URIs. Yes, it's not 1st
year computer science, but it is 2nd or 3rd year rather than post
How can I write an RDF serialization enabling me to express the fact that the
United States Declaration Of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson and
Thomas Jefferson was a male? (And thus asserting that the Declaration of
Independence was written by a male.)
Suppose I have the
39 matches
Mail list logo
