Re: fans of Linked Open Data and the NFL, NHL, or Major League Baseball?
Kingsley Idehen wrote: Today we have ESPN and co. offering analysis via the traditional one-way TV medium. Tomorrow, I envisage a conversation space connected by analytic insights from Joe Public the analyst. Also, what's good for sports applies to Politics, Finance, Soap Operas, and other realms. What I'd really like to do as a next step is to identify a Linked Open Data advocate who happens to watch a lot of one of the sports for which more data is becoming available, and then encourage that person to get in touch with one of the stats-oriented communities within that sport to help make these stats available as a SPARQL endpoint. If it was soccer, Uche would be an obvious candidate, but judging by http://www.sportsstandards.org/oc the NHL, NFL, or MLB seem to be the best places to start. At the next Boston/Cambridge/semweb/LOD meetup, I suggest you keep you eye out for Red Sox, Bruins, or Pats-themed clothing... Bob
Re: fans of Linked Open Data and the NFL, NHL, or Major League Baseball?
Bob DuCharme wrote: Kingsley Idehen wrote: Today we have ESPN and co. offering analysis via the traditional one-way TV medium. Tomorrow, I envisage a conversation space connected by analytic insights from Joe Public the analyst. Also, what's good for sports applies to Politics, Finance, Soap Operas, and other realms. What I'd really like to do as a next step is to identify a Linked Open Data advocate who happens to watch a lot of one of the sports for which more data is becoming available, and then encourage that person to get in touch with one of the stats-oriented communities within that sport to help make these stats available as a SPARQL endpoint. If it was soccer, Uche would be an obvious candidate, but judging by http://www.sportsstandards.org/oc the NHL, NFL, or MLB seem to be the best places to start. At the next Boston/Cambridge/semweb/LOD meetup, I suggest you keep you eye out for Red Sox, Bruins, or Pats-themed clothing... Bob Bob, I am a major Soccer, Football (NFL), Basketball (NBA), and Baseball (MLB) (play-offs only) fan. Uche and I share Soccer fan DNA amongst other things :-) I've looked at the site you suggested and it provides a number of great data sources for LOD and RDB2RDF projects. We will certainly have a crack at a Linked Data Space based on what's available. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Re: bbc-programmes.dyndns.org
Nicholas, I think it would be best to implement the mechanism described here: http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#hashuri This would mean: b00b07kw#episode is the thing b00b07kw.rdf is the RDF variant b00b07kw.html is the HTML variant b00b07kw is a generic, content-negotiated document; it serves the right variant directly, without any redirect, and gives the URI of the selected variant in the Content-Location header. It appears that the HTML version provides much more information than the very brief RDF version, or am I just not finding most of the RDF? Other minor things: bb0b07kw should have a Vary: Accept header to indicate that the resource is subject to content negotiation; otherwise caches can become confused A triple bb0b07kw foaf:primaryTopic bb0b07kw#episode would be very helpful for RDF browsers. Best, Richard On 20 Jun 2008, at 15:16, Nicholas Humfrey wrote: hello, I am trying to get the work we did on: http://bbc-programmes.dyndns.org/ live on bbc.co.uk. Does anyone think that there anything that needs changed/fixed before it does go live? At the moment we just have RDF/XML views for Brands/Series/Episodes and Versions. But plan to is to also have RDF views for for the aggregation pages (tags, genres, formats, services, schedules...) some time in the future. It seems to be hard to find a consensus on use of URIs, but here is how things are the at moment. HTML Document: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw RDF Document: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.rdf The thing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw#episode When asking for RDF here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw#episode you get 303 redirected here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.rdf Is that sane, or just it infact be a 302? nick. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
RE: bbc-programmes.dyndns.org
Your suggested implementation looks excellent, and will work well for us. I have made some changes to the apache configuration for bbc-programmes.dyndns.org, so it now behaves like this. Although I still need to sort out the Content-Location and Vary: Accept headers. The RDF views are not intended to expose exactly the same as the HTML views. The RDF views and URIs are much closer to how the data is modelled in the database. I have added a foaf:primaryTopic triple. Thanks for your feedback :) nick. -Original Message- From: Richard Cyganiak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 6/21/2008 8:27 PM To: Nicholas Humfrey Cc: public-lod@w3.org Subject: Re: bbc-programmes.dyndns.org Nicholas, I think it would be best to implement the mechanism described here: http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#hashuri This would mean: b00b07kw#episode is the thing b00b07kw.rdf is the RDF variant b00b07kw.html is the HTML variant b00b07kw is a generic, content-negotiated document; it serves the right variant directly, without any redirect, and gives the URI of the selected variant in the Content-Location header. It appears that the HTML version provides much more information than the very brief RDF version, or am I just not finding most of the RDF? Other minor things: bb0b07kw should have a Vary: Accept header to indicate that the resource is subject to content negotiation; otherwise caches can become confused A triple bb0b07kw foaf:primaryTopic bb0b07kw#episode would be very helpful for RDF browsers. Best, Richard On 20 Jun 2008, at 15:16, Nicholas Humfrey wrote: hello, I am trying to get the work we did on: http://bbc-programmes.dyndns.org/ live on bbc.co.uk. Does anyone think that there anything that needs changed/fixed before it does go live? At the moment we just have RDF/XML views for Brands/Series/Episodes and Versions. But plan to is to also have RDF views for for the aggregation pages (tags, genres, formats, services, schedules...) some time in the future. It seems to be hard to find a consensus on use of URIs, but here is how things are the at moment. HTML Document: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw RDF Document: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.rdf The thing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw#episode When asking for RDF here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw#episode you get 303 redirected here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.rdf Is that sane, or just it infact be a 302? nick. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Re: bbc-programmes.dyndns.org
On 21 Jun 2008, at 23:41, Peter Ansell wrote: foaf:pagehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html/foaf:page Note that in the above notation the page is an actual URL string and not an RDF resource which is intended because the person already has the semantic resource and just wants to get to the human readable version. Uh. Peter, the domain of foaf:page is foaf:Document. You can't put an rdfs:Literal there. This is a rather weird suggestion. Richard Cheers, Peter
Re: bbc-programmes.dyndns.org
The range is foaf:Document. The domain is owl:Thing. However, a web page is perfectly fine foaf:Document, different from the thing that it is about, no I concur with Richard about not putting a literal - rather: the thing foaf:page rdf:resource=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ b00b07kw.html/foaf:page /the thing -Alan On Jun 21, 2008, at 9:52 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: On 21 Jun 2008, at 23:41, Peter Ansell wrote: foaf:pagehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html/foaf:page Note that in the above notation the page is an actual URL string and not an RDF resource which is intended because the person already has the semantic resource and just wants to get to the human readable version. Uh. Peter, the domain of foaf:page is foaf:Document. You can't put an rdfs:Literal there. This is a rather weird suggestion. Richard Cheers, Peter
Re: bbc-programmes.dyndns.org
2008/6/22 Alan Ruttenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The target of foaf:page is a thing, a web page. If you write a literal string, you are saying the foaf page is that string. That's not what you want to say. Not if you type it with xsd:anyURI... Is there no separation allowed between the web and the semantic web really? I thought the semantic web was based on logic not web structures? The semantic web doesn't gain anything from the result of that page, which clearly has an alternative semantic representation available that you are already looking at when you see the foaf:page (or whatever predicate allows literals) statement. If you accept that the ontology you are using puts xsd:anyURI typed literals into a given field it is perfectly meaningful to use the string as you do any other URI string, just in a context which won't be interfered with, or interfere itself with, the logic based semantic web rules. The web page is http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html (the thing that the URI denotes) It isn't an RDF Resource any more than my street and suburb address though, it is a simple human based locator which doesn't really have a need or want to be an RDF Resource IMO. It is a coincidence IMO that it is defined in the same way that RDF Resources are, and it isn't useful to mix everything up by presuming that URL's of web pages are useful as RDF Resources any more than arbitrary string literals. not http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html; (a string, or a URI, if you wrote it using http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html^^xsd:anyURI) It's not a matter of being for or against it. It's a matter of writing what you mean. If you put xsd:anyURI there it is reasonably clear what you mean. Why are all URL's presumed to be RDF Resources by default? If you think all URI's and only URI's are RDF Resources then it might fit but I don't think that and hence won't mean it when I say it. -Alan On Jun 21, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Peter Ansell wrote: 2008/6/22 Richard Cyganiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 21 Jun 2008, at 23:41, Peter Ansell wrote: foaf:pagehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html/foaf:page Note that in the above notation the page is an actual URL string and not an RDF resource which is intended because the person already has the semantic resource and just wants to get to the human readable version. Uh. Peter, the domain of foaf:page is foaf:Document. You can't put an rdfs:Literal there. This is a rather weird suggestion. Richard Sorry about that. Is there any ontology term which can do that? Why are people so anti putting http URL's in as Literals? If it is an HTML page that relates to your current semantic thing then it seems reasonable to have it as a literal to me. Peter
Re: bbc-programmes.dyndns.org
On Jun 21, 2008, at 10:42 PM, Peter Ansell wrote: 2008/6/22 Alan Ruttenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The target of foaf:page is a thing, a web page. If you write a literal string, you are saying the foaf page is that string. That's not what you want to say. Not if you type it with xsd:anyURI... The you are saying the page is an xsd:anyURI, not a web page. Is there no separation allowed between the web and the semantic web really? Need there be? I thought the semantic web was based on logic not web structures? Where did you get that idea? The semantic web doesn't gain anything from the result of that page, which clearly has an alternative semantic representation available that you are already looking at when you see the foaf:page (or whatever predicate allows literals) statement. It isn't about the result of what you fetch so much as it is speaking clearly, as I said earlier. The domain of foaf:page is a document. Neither a string nor an xsd:anyURI is a document. End of story. If you accept that the ontology you are using puts xsd:anyURI typed literals into a given field it is perfectly meaningful to use the string as you do any other URI string, If you use another ontology than foaf, with a different relation whose domain is an xsd:anyURI, and that relation is documented in such a way as to make sense, then sure. I don't happen to see what is gained by doing that. just in a context which won't be interfered with, or interfere itself with, the logic based semantic web rules. I don't know what you mean by interfered with or what connection you are making between this particular choice and logic based semantic web rules. It seems to me that the main benefit of using foaf:page here is that a lot of people know what it is supposed to mean. The web page is http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html (the thing that the URI denotes) It isn't an RDF Resource any more than my street and suburb address though, it is a simple human based locator which doesn't really have a need or want to be an RDF Resource IMO. In both the case of the house, and the case of the web page, there is the resource - the house and the web page - and there is the address of the house and of the web page (also resources, but different ones). In discussion, one says different things about the address and the thing. For instance, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html; has 45 characters. or http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html uses the stylesheet http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/r/23870/stylesheets/ decor.css or http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html; is a name for http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html 32 vassar avenue, cambridge, ma, usa has 36 characters or the MIT Stata Center foaf:depiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Image:Wfm_stata_center.jpg or 32 vassar avenue, cambridge, ma, usa entered into google maps, will locate the MIT Stata Center It is a coincidence IMO that it is defined in the same way that RDF Resources are, and it isn't useful to mix everything up by presuming that URL's of web pages are useful as RDF Resources any more than arbitrary string literals. First, in the RDF world, everything is an rdf:resource, including rdf:Literals. So they are mixed up already. While there were perhaps mistakes made in RDF, that web pages are considered resources is most certainly not one of them. Finally, I'll point out once again that the issue here isn't what is or is not a good resource. The issue is speaking clearly. If you want to talk about the literal, by all means do so, and if you want to talk about the web page, likewise. But don't confused one with the other. -Alan not http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html; (a string, or a URI, if you wrote it using http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ b00b07kw.html^^xsd:anyURI) It's not a matter of being for or against it. It's a matter of writing what you mean. If you put xsd:anyURI there it is reasonably clear what you mean. Why are all URL's presumed to be RDF Resources by default? If you think all URI's and only URI's are RDF Resources then it might fit but I don't think that and hence won't mean it when I say it. -Alan On Jun 21, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Peter Ansell wrote: 2008/6/22 Richard Cyganiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 21 Jun 2008, at 23:41, Peter Ansell wrote: foaf:pagehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html/ foaf:page Note that in the above notation the page is an actual URL string and not an RDF resource which is intended because the person already has the semantic resource and just wants to get to the human readable version. Uh. Peter, the domain of foaf:page is foaf:Document. You can't put an rdfs:Literal there. This is a rather weird suggestion. Richard Sorry about that. Is there any ontology term which can do that? Why are people so anti putting http URL's in as Literals? If it is an HTML page that
Re: bbc-programmes.dyndns.org
2008/6/22 Alan Ruttenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jun 21, 2008, at 10:42 PM, Peter Ansell wrote: 2008/6/22 Alan Ruttenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The target of foaf:page is a thing, a web page. If you write a literal string, you are saying the foaf page is that string. That's not what you want to say. Not if you type it with xsd:anyURI... The you are saying the page is an xsd:anyURI, not a web page. You aren't saying that all RDF Resource (non-literals) are web pages though. So why is saying that it is an RDF Resource supposed to indicate that it is a web page? Is there no separation allowed between the web and the semantic web really? Need there be? Clearly, there is a big wide world out there with a web that exists perfectly fine with the semantic constrains ;) IRL! I thought the semantic web was based on logic not web structures? Where did you get that idea? By definition not all URI's are web structures, therefore the basis is in a non-web scenario, of which web structures occupy a distinct logical subset. RDF and OWL assume that there are abstract classes, which are not web structures by any means. The semantic web doesn't gain anything from the result of that page, which clearly has an alternative semantic representation available that you are already looking at when you see the foaf:page (or whatever predicate allows literals) statement. It isn't about the result of what you fetch so much as it is speaking clearly, as I said earlier. The domain of foaf:page is a document. Neither a string nor an xsd:anyURI is a document. End of story. It is clear to me what the string means. And saying it is a foaf:Document doesn't help with that at all. foaf:Page having a domain of rdf:Resource doesn't have any more practical benefit than if it didn't say what its domain was. If you accept that the ontology you are using puts xsd:anyURI typed literals into a given field it is perfectly meaningful to use the string as you do any other URI string, If you use another ontology than foaf, with a different relation whose domain is an xsd:anyURI, and that relation is documented in such a way as to make sense, then sure. I don't happen to see what is gained by doing that. The ability to have a string as you say which won't be presumed to be a semantic resource identifier on its own which people can look at and resolve themselves. just in a context which won't be interfered with, or interfere itself with, the logic based semantic web rules. I don't know what you mean by interfered with or what connection you are making between this particular choice and logic based semantic web rules. It seems to me that the main benefit of using foaf:page here is that a lot of people know what it is supposed to mean. Do they really gain the benefit specifically from its use as an rdf:Resource though? Or do they really do a non-semantic retrieval of the resource? Should they only expect to be able to retrieve machine readable representations if they resolve this resource? How do you actually say that a specific rdf resource doesn't actually direct to an rdf representation as an idenfifier itself. The web page is http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html (the thing that the URI denotes) It isn't an RDF Resource any more than my street and suburb address though, it is a simple human based locator which doesn't really have a need or want to be an RDF Resource IMO. In both the case of the house, and the case of the web page, there is the resource - the house and the web page - and there is the address of the house and of the web page (also resources, but different ones). In discussion, one says different things about the address and the thing. For instance, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html; has 45 characters. or http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html uses the stylesheet http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/r/23870/stylesheets/decor.css or http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html; is a name for http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html I don't see why your convention of not dealing with URI's as strings themselves really helps. Interestingly the difference between the RDF resource identifier and the URL in the last one is what I am trying to get at, just in the opposite way as the last statement is in the wrong order for RDF. 32 vassar avenue, cambridge, ma, usa has 36 characters or the MIT Stata Center foaf:depiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wfm_stata_center.jpg or 32 vassar avenue, cambridge, ma, usa entered into google maps, will locate the MIT Stata Center And I am trying to say your last statement exactly. When entered into a web browser the .html version will produce something they can look at... Why is it different for addresses? It is a coincidence IMO that it is defined in the same way that RDF Resources are, and it isn't useful to mix everything up by presuming that URL's of web pages are useful as RDF Resources
