Dear all:
The latest release of the NB_Store module [1] for e-commerce sites based
on DotNetNuke CMS [2] seems to support GoodRelations in RDFa.
See here for details:
http://nbstore.codeplex.com/releases/view/45017
The underlying DotNetNuke CMS is said to power over 600,000 production
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed,
How about internationalization? If the subject is a literal, how would
translations be associated?
On Jul 1, 2010, at 5:14 , Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Ross Singer wrote:
I suppose my questions here would be:
1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 01:53 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Martin Hepp (UniBW)
martin.h...@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
Dear all:
The latest release of the NB_Store module [1] for e-commerce sites based on
DotNetNuke CMS [2] seems to support GoodRelations in RDFa.
See here for details:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 22:14 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Ross Singer wrote:
I suppose my questions here would be:
1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besides
being an academic exercise)?
A few off the top of my head.
1. Titles of
On 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote:
For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked data'
practise by using examples like { 'London' a x:Place } - whereas I'd
immediately counter with { x:London a 'Place' }.
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments
Hello everybody,
I think the main issues are already discussed. Hence, here are some
summarized notes of my thoughts:
1. We shouldn't propagate that a user (always a machine or human beeing)
has to go this way and not the other one. Leaving this decision by the
user, leads to more user
(rejigged subject line)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Pat, I wish you had been there. ;)
I have very mixed views on this, I have to say. Part of me wanted badly to
be present. But after reading the results of the straw poll, part of me
wants to completely
+1 to the points below.
I think one should point out that rdf semantics allows them, and that in an
open world they
just can't be excluded.
In N3 literals as subjects are often used. And the cwm repository is a good
place to look
for examples
@prefix log: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#.
On 2010-07-01, at 03:20, Hugh Glaser wrote:
In fact, a question I would like to ask, but suspect that noone who can
answer it is still reading this thread ( :-) ):
For those who implement RDF stores, do you have to do something special to
reject RDF that has literals as subject?
In my
Hi Patrick,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net wrote:
Dan,
Just a quick response to only one of the interesting points you raise:
It's clear that many workshop participants were aware of the risk of
destabilizing the core technologies just as we are gaining
Dan,
I would like to add a very simple one in the list of annoyances:
Le 1 juil. 2010 à 04:46, Dan Brickley a écrit :
Some reasons why RDF is annoying and hard (a mildly ordered list):
[… cut list of annoyances …]
* community building by hacking:
The RDF community is pretty much a community
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor
Dan and all, hello.
On 2010 Jul 1, at 11:30, Dan Brickley wrote:
Yes, you are right. It is fair and interesting to bring up this
analogy and associated history. SGML even got a namecheck in the
original announcement of the Web,
[...]
So, I think I'm holding an awkward position here:
*
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org
On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
Structured
John,
Le 1 juil. 2010 à 10:46, John Erickson a écrit :
Karl asks, ...How does one start hacking?
Although this might be politically incorrect advice, Toby Segarin's
O'Reilly book Programming the Semantic Web (2009) (use The
Google...) is a very accessible introduction.
I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as
subjects
I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that
assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal,
and a node in a predicate position is a URI node.
Of course, the
I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as
subjects.
+1
Cheers,
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91
Jeremy, the point is to start the process, but put it on a low burner,
so that in 4-5 years time, you will be able to sell a whole new RDF+ suite to
your customers with this new benefit. ;-)
On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
I am still not hearing any argument to justify the
On 1 Jul 2010, at 14:05, Ed Summers wrote:
Wonderful post Dan. I think the work you and others have been doing w/
Facebook on the OpenGraphProtocol is a great example of how we ought
to be thinking about the future of RDF ... building vocabularies to
describe web resources, describing
Hi,
I just want to throw my 2 cents in this discussion. I posted a comment in
October 2004 related to Smart Literalproposal in Jena Discussion Group.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jena-dev/message/11581
Best regards
Stephane Fellah
smartRealm LLC
RE getting a full list of the benefits, surely if it's being
discussed here, Literals as Subjects must be *somebody's* Real(tm)
Problem and the benefits are inherent in its solution?
And if it isn't, um, why is it being discussed here? ;)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Henry Story
Dan, Jeremy, Pat, Henry, Michael, Kinglsey, Ivan, ack.. everyone,
Part of me feels like I should apologise for bringing this to the
mailing list (even though it was inevitable) - this is all getting out
of scope and the last thing we need is one of the most critical
communities in what's a
Hello!
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor
Docs/Resources). An Identifier != Literal.
If
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote:
I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as
subjects
I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes
throughout that a node in a subject position is not a
Henry Story wrote:
On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve
Saw them, smiled, threw them in the bin.
I can't present a use case for Literals as Subject, but I did have a
relevant experience recently when having written a reasoner for sindice
I was briefly intrigued to discover that executing some owl rules leads
to a production of statements where
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Sandro Hawke san...@w3.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice
but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other
serializations of N3 to come along.
RIF
Sandro Hawke wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice
but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other
serializations of N3 to come along.
RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello!
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor
Docs/Resources). An
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello!
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects
have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many
resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by
Descriptor
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Henry Story henry.st...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 Jul 2010, at 18:18, Yves Raimond wrote:
In any case RDF Semantics does, I believe,
allow literals in subject position. It is just that many many syntaxes
don't allow that to be expressed,
It doesn't seem to be
Nathan wrote:
Dan, Jeremy, Pat, Henry, Michael, Kinglsey, Ivan, ack.. everyone,
Part of me feels like I should apologise for bringing this to the
mailing list (even though it was inevitable) - this is all getting out
of scope and the last thing we need is one of the most critical
communities
Rob Styles wrote:
On 1 Jul 2010, at 14:05, Ed Summers wrote:
Wonderful post Dan. I think the work you and others have been doing w/
Facebook on the OpenGraphProtocol is a great example of how we ought
to be thinking about the future of RDF ... building vocabularies to
describe web
Hello Jeremy!
One example on the top of my head. You have a 'magic predicate' such as
Virtuoso bif:contains, but slightly more expansive than that (a large index
lookup, a difficult mathematical computation or fuzzy literal search, etc).
If you were able to store the result in RDF once that magic
Or, an even simpler use-case: storing metaphones for strings in a triple
store.
y
On 1 Jul 2010 18:15, Yves Raimond yves.raim...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Jeremy!
One example on the top of my head. You have a 'magic predicate' such as
Virtuoso bif:contains, but slightly more expansive than that
Hi all
Re-naming the subject to try and get out of the general noise :)
I'm been following this noisy thread with amazement. I've no clear position
on the issue, just take the opportunity to attract the attention of the
community to the work of Gerard de Melo at Lexvo.org [1] which has been
(cc: list trimmed to LOD list.)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Cut long story short.
[-cut-]
We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data
representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its basically the
foundation that
On 7/1/2010 10:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
Or, an even simpler use-case: storing metaphones for strings in a
triple store.
OK - and why are these use cases not reasonably easily addressable using
the N-ary predicate design pattern with a two place ltieral predicate i.e.
instead of
Hi Dan, Kingsley
Happy to see you expose clearly those things that have been also in the
corner of my mind since Kingsley started to hammer the EAV drum a while ago.
I've been also in training and introduction to RDF insisted on the fact that
RDF was somehow just an avatar of the old paradigm
On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes
throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a
predicate position is a URI node.
On 7/1/2010 8:46 AM, Henry Story wrote:
but is
On Jul 1, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
3. Dates represented as character strings in some known date format
other than XSD can be asserted to be the same as a 'real' date by
writing things like
01-02-1481
Dan Brickley wrote:
(cc: list trimmed to LOD list.)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Cut long story short.
[-cut-]
We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data
representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
...
So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed
literals in
subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned
123 length 3 .
Into
_:b owl:sameAs 123;
length 3.
?
So that really you'd have to
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote:
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
...
So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that
allowed literals in
subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned
On 07/01/2010 09:11 PM, Henry Story wrote:
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote:
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
...
So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that
allowed literals in
subject position, could
On 7/1/2010 11:51 AM, Henry Story wrote:
So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed
literals in
subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned
123 length 3 .
Into
_:b owl:sameAs 123;
length 3.
?
I couldn't because chunks of
Jeremy, et al.,
I think people are already showing the money but they do it 2 cents
after 2 cents ;-) Here is my little 2 cent contribution.
To start with, I am on the side of the people in favour of allowing
literals in the subject position. I've read the discussion and pondered
the
Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
Jeremy, et al.,
I think people are already showing the money but they do it 2 cents
after 2 cents ;-) Here is my little 2 cent contribution.
To start with, I am on the side of the people in favour of allowing
literals in the subject position. I've read the
Has any PRISM content ever made it into the LOD cloud?
PRISM (Publishing Requirements for Industry Standard Metadata) is a metadata
standard that can be encoded as RDF/XML (as well as XML, and XMP), which has
been developed by an impressive industry consortium [1], and which, as far as I
can
Dan Brickley wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
The sequence went something like this.
TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was simply
in the dark ages.
It's only simple if you weren't there :)
You
Hondros, Constantine wrote:
Has any PRISM content ever made it into the LOD cloud?
PRISM (Publishing Requirements for Industry Standard Metadata) is a
metadata standard that can be encoded as RDF/XML (as well as XML, and
XMP), which has been developed by an impressive industry consortium
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
The sequence went something like this.
TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was
simply
in the dark ages.
It's only simple if you weren't there :)
You mean you didn't see me lurking
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
snip/
Something else that keeps coming up, a subset of owl always comes in to
conversations, obviously owl:sameAs - there was a proposal from one Jim
Hendler [1] at a RDF workshop thing to perhaps do something about moving
these
swapping subject as I know a lot are simply ignoring the previous thread
and this should be considered separately ;)
Paul Gearon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
snip/
Something else that keeps coming up, a subset of owl always comes in to
conversations,
http://www.semanticoverflow.com/
This is a good step, I wonder if it's known. Unfortunately, the questions
are already intimidating.
Side thought: what questions do newcomers have; and why don't we ask them on
behalf of the newcomers? (FAQ in reverse)
For instance:
Dan Brickley wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
The sequence went something like this.
TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was
simply
in the dark ages.
It's only simple if you weren't there :)
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:05:54 -0400
Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
W3C only officially acknowledges RDF/XML as Markup Language for RDF
Data Model.
I hear this time and time again, but it is not true anymore.
XHTML+RDFa 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation in October 2008. It has the
fyi: TimBL has just updated
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html to now read:
3- 'When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the
standards (RDF*, SPARQL)'
.. 'The basic format here for RDF/XML, with its popular alternative
serialization N3 (or Turtle).'
To
Toby Inkster wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:05:54 -0400
Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
W3C only officially acknowledges RDF/XML as Markup Language for RDF
Data Model.
I hear this time and time again, but it is not true anymore.
XHTML+RDFa 1.0 became a W3C
Nathan wrote:
fyi: TimBL has just updated
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html to now read:
3- 'When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the
standards (RDF*, SPARQL)'
.. 'The basic format here for RDF/XML, with its popular alternative
serialization N3 (or
On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:16 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
Well, JSON is a syntax for serializing some kinds of data used in
programming languages; it's not a programming language itself. I
expect
W3C will be doing some more work in bridging RDF and JSON soon; my
most
recent (unofficial)
On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote:
For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad
'linked data' practise by using examples like { 'London' a
x:Place } - whereas I'd immediately counter with { x:London a
'Place' }.
On Jul 1, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
On 2010-07-01, at 03:20, Hugh Glaser wrote:
In fact, a question I would like to ask, but suspect that noone who
can
answer it is still reading this thread ( :-) ):
For those who implement RDF stores, do you have to do something
special to
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun
On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Tim Finin wrote:
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
...
So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along
that allowed literals in
subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned
123 length 3 .
Into
_:b owl:sameAs 123;
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject
or the predicate.
Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing
literals in subject position would require **no change at all** to the
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF
specs actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was
always part of the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have
a version of owl:sameAs in the RDFS namespace. Just use the OWL one.
Pat
On Jul 1,
Hi Pat,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs
actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of
the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of
Paul Gearon wrote:
Hi Pat,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs
actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of
the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:07 AM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the
subject
or the predicate.
Just to clarify, this is a
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
Hi Pat,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The
RDF specs
actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always
part of
the RDF design to
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:07 AM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject
or the predicate.
Just to clarify,
76 matches
Mail list logo
