Re: What would you build with a web of data? Decision support
Hi Georgi, First let me underline that the following is not a detached theory, it is very practical: The web of data can support the clinician in his cycle of decision: (a)The clinician makes measurements (in the broadest sense, also speaking with the patient and looking at a picture is a measurement). (b)The clinician focuses on those measurement results which are interesting for his therapeutic decisions (feature extraction). (c)The clinician compares these measurement results with experience. At this he may use rules or models which are derived from common experience. (d)The clinician decides for therapy, and measures the effect of his decision, i.e. the cycle starts again with (a). Good and large experience is very important for step (c). The cycle of decision (measurements - feature extraction - comparison with experience - decision) is also effective outside medicine: Before every conscious decision we *compare* decision relevant data with experience (or a model which is derived from common experience). Experience says, at *similar* situations possibility X yields better results than other possibilities, so we decide for possibility X. Even if we try to decide best, our decisions are suboptimal due to limited experience. The web of data can be designed in a way, that it collects experiences (also decision relevant measurements of machines) in a precise and *comparable* way (much more precise and better comparable than text). So the web of data can summarize experiences in well defined comparable way for decision support. For this a clear similarity relation is necessary. The natural way to do this is a vectorial description of resources, i.e. quantification of the resource's properties and regarding the result (a sequence of numbers) as vector. After defining an appropriate metric (distance function) we can calculate similarity of vectors by calculating the distance between them - the less the distance, the more similar are the vectors and (in case of good quantification) the original resources. Using HTTP URIs allows that all domain name owners can define these vectors and optimized distance functions. Therefore i suggest to introduce standardized Vectorial Resource Descriptors (VRDs) on the WEB - and it seems the best possibility to integrate these in Linked Data. The paper http://www.orthuber.com/wp1.pdf describes details. It is not completely up to date, and though the basal content of the VRDs (and Vector Space Descriptors - VSDs) is clear, I have not been sure about the syntax of the RDF examples (Chapters 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 currently) - and I would like to adapt the syntax to suggestions from the community. So comments and suggestions are very welcome! Best Wolfgang Georgi Kobilarov schrieb: Yesterday issued a challenge on my blog for ideas for concrete linked open data applications. Because talking about concrete apps helps shaping the roadmap for the technical questions for the linked data community ahead. The real questions, not the theoretical ones... Richard MacManus of ReadWriteWeb picked up the challenge: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_of_data_what_would_you_build.php Let's be creative about stuff we'd build with the web of data. Assume the Linked Data Web would be there already, what would build? Cheers, Georgi -- Georgi Kobilarov Uberblic Labs Berlin http://blog.georgikobilarov.com
Re: ‘New ontology pages’ as Semantic Web foundation
Dear Alex, you wrote this is a reminder that an original idea of Semantic Web is based on three foundations, namely, XML, RDF and ontology pages. but this is by far not complete, much more is possible. The Semantic Web could also integrate VRDs (Vectorial Resource Descriptors) which can be perceived as members of Conceptual Spaces (see e.g. http://luisa.open.ac.uk/publications/Dietze-BlendingRealVirtual.pdf or simply as describer of quantifiable resources (in the broadest sense, also sources for feature extraction) in arbitrary resolution. http://www.orthuber.com/wpa.htm contain most information, with some old conventions and partially old nomenclature Every VRD contains a VSI which is a HTTP URI which identifies the Vector Space to which the VRD belongs, and which points to a VSD (a Vector Space Descriptor) which contains all necessary information about the vector space, also about the distance function for similarity comparison. This Similarity is well defined and does *not* need explicit creation of links and Vector Spaces can be used to expand the Web of Linked Data, both concepts could enrich each other. All the best Wolfgang Orthuber Alex Abramovich schrieb: Hi all, This is a reminder that an original idea of Semantic Web is based on three foundations, namely, XML, RDF and ontology pages. Web resources’ content must be duplicated in the machine-readable form (ontology page); RDF will link a total Web content into one semantic network (Semantic Web); intelligent agents, defined on this semantic network, will serve the Web visitors. As it seems to me, ‘Berners-Lee at al’ expected that Web resource’s owners will write ontology pages themselves. Unfortunately, their expectation failed. Why? On the one hand, Web resources’ owners don’t ready to pay more for their Web resources maintain, and any Web design’s complication conflict with real tendency of the simplification (and even automation) of Web resources’ construction. On the other hand, ‘Berners-Lee at al’ didn’t provide both any unified scenario for the ontology pages creation and connective semantic mechanism. The ontology pages idea was rebranded, as rightly observed Dan Brickley, into other variations on the theme, related to Linked Data and such instruments as RDFa, GRDDL etc., which aim to integrate RDF more closely into user-facing Web content. As a result Semantic Web engineers must link now more than 13 billion RDF triples and unknown quantity of independent ontologies. I suggest returning to the original ontology pages’ idea based on the new knowledge representation language Need Language (NL). Herewith, I assume that Web publisher is extremely interested in success of the publication, but he is against additional and unmotivated expenses on the maintenance of Web resource, and also he does not wish to penetrate into additional technical details. You know that any Web publisher has in mind a satisfaction of a certain need of Web visitors. The main problem is to detect what need exactly may be satisfied by the given Web resource. NL based engine will provide a query-answering session with both any Web publisher and any Web visitor using their professional or/and everyday slang. As a result Web resource’s content and Web visitor’s specification are represented the same semantic marked syntax, and NL based engine will get an opportunity to find for the visitor an appropriate Web resource. If except a need description Web publisher provides a way of this need satisfaction, we will get an opportunity to meet Web visitor’s need directly or to compose a new way of the given need satisfactions using available need-resources. In other words, I mean that Web publishers will rewrite (in the scope of the query-answering session) their published information in the new specific form (or input a description of certain need’s satisfaction) that *includes all necessary constructive elements including documents and audio/video data* in the corresponding places of the new presentation of their Web resource. As a result Web visitor will be relieved of necessity to look through Web content in search of relevant information. He will deal mainly with Web of needs. System engine will interview Web visitor and find or generate the actual way of the given need satisfaction. Herewith, system engine will demonstrate to the customer *only those* documents and audio/video resources, *which* *are related to the found way of the given need satisfaction.* Optional, Internet provider supplies Web of needs in form of configurations ordered by the customer that will allow to the governments to regulate the information flow. Neither Web publisher nor Web visitor will be obliged to know something else except the particularities of their needs. They will be interacting with Web of needs using their professional slang. With the purpose
Re: Making human-friendly linked data pages more human-friendly (was: dbpedia not very visible, nor fun)
Linking of data can be very successful, if it is not restricted to RDF enthusiasts. In this case the vocabulary can grow extremely. Consider e.g. integration of healthcare data. Existing vocabularies like SNOMED CT http://www.ihtsdo.org/news/article/view/snomed-ct-and-interoperable-healthcare-conference-tutorials-tuesday-1st-july-2008/ contain about 40 concepts with increasing tendency. So if the vocabulary is huge, it is not adequate, that the browser software knows about the information for human readable representation, but it could know how to download this information from the web using the linked data concept. If http URIs are used as identifier, it is possible to store the information for human readable representation at the location where the http URI points to. Are there up to now rules for this? Best Wolfgang - Original Message - From: Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de To: Matthias Samwald samw...@gmx.at Cc: public-lod@w3.org Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 12:46 PM Subject: Re: Making human-friendly linked data pages more human-friendly (was: dbpedia not very visible, nor fun) Hi Matthias, Please allow me to present a contrarian argument. First, there are some datasets that combine linked data output with a traditional website, e.g., by embedding some RDFa markup. Of course, in that case, all the rules of good web design and information presentation still apply, and the site has to first and foremost fulfill the visitor's information needs in order to be successful. That's self-evident and not what we are talking about here. Most linked data is different. The main purpose is not to create a web site where visitors go to look up stuff. The main purpose is to publish data in a re-usable way, in order to allow repurposing of the data in new applications. In that case, the audience for the human-readable versions of the RDF data is *not* a visitor that came to the site while googling for some bit of information. It's more likely to be a data analyst, mashup developer, or integration engineer. So what I suggest is to think of these pages not as something that end users see, but rather as something akin to Javadoc. Javadoc pages are auto-generated pages that describe a public interface of your system. Linked data pages are the same, but rather than a Java API, they describe your URI space. And unlike Javadoc, they are directly connected to the documented artifacts (URIs). I think that the pages should mostly answer the following questions: What concept is identified? What *exactly* is the URI of this concept (careful with /html or #this at the end)? Who curates this identifier? Can I trust it to be stable? Most linked data pages actually do a fairly decent job at answering these. Every data publisher has limited resources, and spending them on prettifying the HTML views is very low-impact. It's much more important to increase data quality, publish more data, improve other documentation, and create compelling demos/apps on top of the data. The namespace documentation is usually good enough, and the geekiness of the pages actually helps to drive home the point that it's about *re-using this data elsewhere*, rather than looking at the data in the boring old web browser. That being said, of course nicer-looking pages that present information in a more useful way are of course always better, but that's a somewhat secondary problem in the linked data context. Best, Richard On 15 Sep 2009, at 10:08, Matthias Samwald wrote: A central idea of linked data is, in my understanding, that every resource has not only a HTTP - resolvable RDF description of itself, but also a human-friendly rendering that can be viewed in a web browser. With the increasing popularity of RDFa, the URIs of these resources are not only hidden away in triplestores, but become increasingly exposed on web pages. People want to click on them, and, hopefully, not all of these people come from the core community of RDF enthusiasts. This means that the HTML rendering of linked data resources might need to look a bit sexier than it does today. I dare to say that the Pubby-esque rendering of DBpedia pages such as http://dbpedia.org/page/Primary_motor_cortex is helpful to get a quick overview of the RDF triples about this resource, but non-RDF-enthusiasts would not find it very inviting. This could be improved by changes in the layout, and possibly a manually curated ordering of properties. For example, http://d.opencalais.com/er/company/ralg-tr1r/f8a13a13-8dbc-3d7e-82b6-1d7968476cae.html definitely looks more inviting than the typical DBpedia page (albeit still a bit sterile). In the case of DBpedia, it might be better to expose the excellent human-readable Wikipedia page for each resource, plus a prominently positioned 'show raw data' tab at the top. For other linked data resources that are not derived from existing
Re: URIs for great circle arcs
Thanks for this implementation! If we implement such distance calculation in a search engine, and sort the result according to distance, this would be local search (search within a special region). In this case the search vector has two dimensions (GPS coordinates). This is a special case of general similarity search http://www.orthuber.com/wpa.htm In general similarity search the search result is ordered according to a distance functions which can be defined by all http URI owners (using the convention shown in Figure 2 of http://www.orthuber.com/wp1.pdf ). It would be possible to search generally for objects which have similar quantitative (numeric) description. So the general application would be very attractive. Wolfgang - Original Message - From: Toby A Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk To: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 10:45 AM Subject: URIs for great circle arcs Great circle arcs are the shortest surface paths between two points on a spherical body. I've minted some URIs (and am serving up RDF/ XML) for great circle arcs on the surface of the Earth. Amongst other things, the RDF/XML returned will tell you the distance between the points, the compass bearing and the midpoint. For example, the arc between London and Tokyo is represented as: http://ontologi.es/place/arc/51.507778;-0.128056/35.68;139.77 which is a geo:SpatialThing. There is also: http://ontologi.es/place/arc/ 51.507778;-0.128056/35.68;139.77#points which is an rdfs:Container representing the (infinite) set of all points between the two endpoints of the line. An additional feature is the ability to link to URIs representing the endpoints. e.g.: http://ontologi.es/place/arc/ 51.507778;-0.128056/35.68;139.77?uri1=http://dbpedia.org/ resource/Londonuri2=http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tokyo The document you get returned still has a primaryTopic of http://ontologi.es/place/arc/51.507778;-0.128056/35.68;139.77 (i.e. it doesn't alter the linked data URI) but now contains explicit dbpedia references for the end points. Those URIs don't have to be from dbpedia - they could be anything - they're not used in calculations of distances, etc - just included in the output. Possible uses: flight and travel linked data. Any ideas for improvements? -- Toby A Inkster mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk http://tobyinkster.co.uk
Re: numeric web search (Was: URLs instead of URNs)
After our dialogue of yesterday I again thought about the best term for the pattern name in http://www.orthuber.com/wp1.pdf which is simultaneously a identifier and a address. Because of chapter 2.1 of http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/ the term http URI seems to be appropriate. We have seen, that a complete, precise, and at once accessible definition in exactly one place on the web can be very helpful to avoid misunderstandings, and can save much time. Therefore the identifier (the pattern name) should not only identify (e.g. the meaning of some numbers), is should also point to (a file which points to) all defining information (of this which should be identified, e.g. of numbers). If numeric web search (similarity search) should be integrated into the semantic web and/or if there is interest in efficient representation of quantifiable objects, I would suggest to determine the concrete design in a meeting, e.g. a workshop. Wolfgang - Original Message - From: Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com To: Wolfgang Orthuber orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de Cc: Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org; semantic-web semantic-...@w3.org; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:57 PM Subject: Re: numeric web search (Was: URLs instead of URNs) Wolfgang Orthuber wrote: We know that a URL refers to a (unique) web address. If also A URL is a Web Address based Identifier then the Web Address determines also the URL. Because the Web address is globally unique, the URL is unique and can be used as unique identifier. Is this correct? The URL can be used as an Identifier because you can use a globally unique Resource Location/Address as a Name for a Thing (e.g. a Document), albeit with implications (i.e. mobility of the Thing you name). (then I could write that the pattern name in http://www.orthuber.com/wp1.pdf is a URL, because it is based on the location of a unique linking file which points to all defining information) http://www.orthuber.com/wp1.pdf is the Web Address constrained URI (nee. URL) for the resource: wp1.pdf exposed to the Web via an HTTP server. I've made no mention of all defining information . Kingsley Wolfgang - Original Message - From: Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com To: Wolfgang Orthuber orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de Cc: Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org; semantic-web semantic-...@w3.org; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 3:04 PM Subject: Re: numeric web search (Was: URLs instead of URNs) Wolfgang Orthuber wrote: Dan, can a http URI refer transiently or accidentally to some address? Of course. Which term do you suggest for something which permanently refers to a (unique, permanent) web address, and which differs if and only if the web address differs? A URI that carries location/address specificity or dependency (transiently or accidentally). An Identifier with endowed location specificity (overtly or covertly) isn't optimal, but that doesn't stop it being an identifier. A URL is a Web Address based Identifier -- a URI :-) Kingsley Wolfgang - Original Message - From: Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org To: Wolfgang Orthuber orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de Cc: semantic-web semantic-...@w3.org; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:31 PM Subject: Re: numeric web search (Was: URLs instead of URNs) On 26/5/09 15:17, Wolfgang Orthuber wrote: Dan, in http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/ I read An http URI is a URL . So I concluded that a different http URI is a different URL (address). At this I assumed, that all http URIs which refer to the same address (case insensitive), are defined as identical. Is this correct? I'd rather they'd have said URL is a technically obsolete but common colloquial term for http and http-like URIs. Identity of identifiers is tricky because you have to try to distinguish between identifiers which accidentally of transiently refer to the same thing, versus those where it is built-in to the definition of the scheme (eg. the port 80 and domain name canonicalisation rules). Dan -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Re: numeric web search (Was: URLs instead of URNs)
David, thanks for the address; I also think that entity identifiers should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Though different HTTP URIs always refer to different addresses, it is possbile that they have identical application (e.g. identification of a number with meaning Length). To reduce the frequency of redundancy, definitions of HTTP URIs could contain lists of keywords. Text search restricted to the definitions can disclose existing definitions about a specific topic to prevent from redefinitions. If there are nevertheless redefinitions, webmasters can ask web search engines for the most frequently used HTTP URI, and prefer it in their web pages. So we can get concentration to one name again. This is one possibility, I will contact okkam, perhaps we can exchange some ideas. Best Wolfgang - Original Message - From: David Booth da...@dbooth.org To: Wolfgang Orthuber orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de Cc: semantic-web semantic-...@w3.org; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 4:55 PM Subject: Re: numeric web search (Was: URLs instead of URNs) Wolfgang, It sounds like your work may be somewhat related to what the Okkam project is doing: http://www.okkam.org/ David Booth On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 11:59 +0100, Wolfgang Orthuber wrote: David, we have independently drawn the same conclusions, this seems to be most efficient. Numeric similarity search needs an efficient approach. Figure 2 in http://www.orthuber.com/wp1.pdf shows that there are only a few steps that linked data are the first which allow numeric web search with world wide task sharing. The searchable patterns are HTTP URIs with feature vectors (sequences of numbers). Sequences of numbers are the natural way to describe quantifiable objects, e.g. time as one floating point number (e.g. seconds since 2000), GPS coordinates as two floating point numbers, complex measurement results with more than 100 floating point numbers. Concerning this suggestions and examples for the best (efficient) syntax are welcome! You may also look at http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOMINFOJ/2008/0002/0001/21TOMINFOJ.SGM which shows an attractive application. Best Wolfgang Address: Dr. Wolfgang Orthuber, Mathematician, Orthodontist, University Clinic of Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany Arnold Heller Str. 16 24105 Kiel - Original Message - From: David Booth da...@dbooth.org To: W. Orthuber orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de Cc: Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk; semantic-web semantic-...@w3.org; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 3:45 AM Subject: Re: URLs instead of URNs (Was URI lifecycle (Was: Owning URIs)) On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 17:08 +0100, W. Orthuber wrote: David, In short, although semantic web architecture could be designed to permit unrestricted semantic drift, I think it is a better design -- better serving the semantic web community as a whole -- to adopt an architecture that permits the semantics of each URI to be anchored, by use of a URI declaration. Absolutement. Yes, I think also, URIs should be well defined. Up to now I thought they are, but your article shows that URIs (which are not URLs) have not necessarily an unique definition! Moreover URI should be anchored; the best would be that they contain a link to all their definition and further bindingly associated information. Why not prefer URIs which are (special defining) URLs, which contain a link to a file which contains links to all defining information (unambiguous information, in multiple languages if wished)? So the anchor would be at once accessible and there would be exactly one location for the decisive information. Yes, the preferred way to do that is quite well described in Cool URIs for the Semantic Web: http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic. -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
numeric web search (Was: URLs instead of URNs)
David, we have independently drawn the same conclusions, this seems to be most efficient. Numeric similarity search needs an efficient approach. Figure 2 in http://www.orthuber.com/wp1.pdf shows that there are only a few steps that linked data are the first which allow numeric web search with world wide task sharing. The searchable patterns are HTTP URIs with feature vectors (sequences of numbers). Sequences of numbers are the natural way to describe quantifiable objects, e.g. time as one floating point number (e.g. seconds since 2000), GPS coordinates as two floating point numbers, complex measurement results with more than 100 floating point numbers. Concerning this suggestions and examples for the best (efficient) syntax are welcome! You may also look at http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOMINFOJ/2008/0002/0001/21TOMINFOJ.SGM which shows an attractive application. Best Wolfgang Address: Dr. Wolfgang Orthuber, Mathematician, Orthodontist, University Clinic of Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany Arnold Heller Str. 16 24105 Kiel - Original Message - From: David Booth da...@dbooth.org To: W. Orthuber orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de Cc: Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk; semantic-web semantic-...@w3.org; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 3:45 AM Subject: Re: URLs instead of URNs (Was URI lifecycle (Was: Owning URIs)) On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 17:08 +0100, W. Orthuber wrote: David, In short, although semantic web architecture could be designed to permit unrestricted semantic drift, I think it is a better design -- better serving the semantic web community as a whole -- to adopt an architecture that permits the semantics of each URI to be anchored, by use of a URI declaration. Absolutement. Yes, I think also, URIs should be well defined. Up to now I thought they are, but your article shows that URIs (which are not URLs) have not necessarily an unique definition! Moreover URI should be anchored; the best would be that they contain a link to all their definition and further bindingly associated information. Why not prefer URIs which are (special defining) URLs, which contain a link to a file which contains links to all defining information (unambiguous information, in multiple languages if wished)? So the anchor would be at once accessible and there would be exactly one location for the decisive information. Yes, the preferred way to do that is quite well described in Cool URIs for the Semantic Web: http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Re: Owning URIs (Was: Yet Another LOD cloud browser)
Li, it would be not difficult to define a syntax and rules so that exclusive ownership (standardization model) and shared ownership (social wikipedia model) can exist simultaneously. At this the standardization model can be designed very efficiently (decentrally defined templates for human readable representation in many languages and metrics for similarity search are at once accessible, cf. my fist email of yesterday). These advantages would be also possible for the social model, because shared ownership could be integrated into the standardization model if only one socially good organized domain name owner (e.g. wikipedia.org) allows this. Of course this is only possible, if there is (official) support for a concrete design variant of the standardization model. If there are questions concerning the concrete design in detail, please don't hesitate to ask me. Wolfgang - Original Message - From: Li Ding di...@cs.rpi.edu To: Wolfgang Orthuber orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de Cc: Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; semantic-...@w3.org Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 6:57 PM Subject: Re: Owning URIs (Was: Yet Another LOD cloud browser) If there is no explicit official standard and recommendation for such global task sharing, there is the danger that those who need a special vocabulary develop many incompatible standards for exchange of machine readable data. The earlier such a standard for well defined task sharing is recommended by W3C, the easier it can be introduced. well, we can learn from the past: (i) biomedical terminologies are systematically maintained and probably globalized - I would say such terms are maintained via standardization processes. recent advance of DOI allows use to assign an official URI for a publication. so does DNS. (ii) English is evolving by daily life usage (that just reminded me an earlier mail by Jeremy on live meaning and dead languages) - this is case for a social vocabulary development As mentioned in the previous email, standardization and social evolution are useful and somehow complementary. However, they are more or less an approach to the goal, which has been discussed in previous email: * given an URI in browser, a user really need to get it resolved (i.e. be able to fetch its definition) , whether using the namespace of the URI or use a search engine is just an option to the browser. * knowing the ownership will be helpful for users to trust the description of URI. The coexistence of exclusive ownership (standardization model) or shared ownership (social wikipedia model) are complementary solutions. As David said, social evolution could be dirty, but it also looks good: * it is really not an easy job for one to maintain a comprehensive description of URI for a long time (hard drive may crash, money may run out, interests may switch, language may change). In addition to the exclusive ownership for important concepts, open source style social development should help too. so why not allow multiple ownership for one URI * the web is open, how can we help end users to pick one from the multiple URIs referring to the same concept. so why not use social ranking (where ownership may play an important role) to enable the Darwin evolution. -- Li Ding http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~dingl/
Re: Owning URIs (Was: Yet Another LOD cloud browser)
It is important to track the ownership (further provenance) of the description of URI. we may want to know who published the definition, and where the definition is copied from. Being able to connect RDF triples with authors is an important step towards the social semantic web. In my proposal the name of the defining domain is included in the URI. It determines the decisive definition. Responsible is the owner of the defining domain. Wolfgang
Re: Owning URIs (Was: Yet Another LOD cloud browser)
Kingsley, What I wanted to say is that the existing system for registration of domain names can be also efficiently used to initiate well defined task sharing in the definition of a global vocabulary for the semantic web, using a simple standard as proposed in my initial email of today. If there is no explicit official standard and recommendation for such global task sharing, there is the danger that those who need a special vocabulary develop many incompatible standards for exchange of machine readable data. The earlier such a standard for well defined task sharing is recommended by W3C, the easier it can be introduced. Wolfgang - Original Message - From: Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com To: Wolfgang Orthuber orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de Cc: Li Ding di...@cs.rpi.edu; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; semantic-...@w3.org Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:01 PM Subject: Re: Owning URIs (Was: Yet Another LOD cloud browser) Wolfgang Orthuber wrote: It is important to track the ownership (further provenance) of the description of URI. we may want to know who published the definition, and where the definition is copied from. Being able to connect RDF triples with authors is an important step towards the social semantic web. In my proposal the name of the defining domain is included in the URI. It determines the decisive definition. Responsible is the owner of the defining domain. Wolfgang Wolfgang, A URL is a URI. It identifies an address. A URI embodies URLs and URNs. You can refer to things using HTTP URIs or URNs. You can refer to things and resolve descriptions of said things via HTTP URIs. In all cases, URIs inherently posses domain ownership implications via the authority component. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Re: numeric data on the web, numeric web search
Thanks for the information! I have posted http://www.thenationaldialogue.org/ideas/numeric-web-search an hope it helps. Let me know if you have further ideas and suggestions, I am always interested. Wolfgang - Original Message - From: Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com To: Semantics-ProjectParadigm metadataport...@yahoo.com Cc: public-lod@w3.org; Wolfgang Orthuber orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de; semantic-web semantic-...@w3.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:35 PM Subject: Re: numeric data on the web, numeric web search Semantics-ProjectParadigm wrote: Excellent and timely starting point. Will definitely look into sending in ideas about making available data that will help stimulate green revolution and generate green jobs. Even if the Govts. of the world simply publish XML based structured data, that alone would deliver full employment and lots of follow-on opportunities for the RDFization technology developers :-) So as long as the data is structured, there will be huge opportunities for those that grok Linked Data and the process of RDFization, esp. those that generate wrapper/proxy based Linked Data URIs :-) Kingsley December 2009 in Denmark follow up to Kyoto is coming up. Oceans of raw data waiting to be processed to come up with policies that both address climate change issues AND generate new jobs! Milton Ponson GSM: +297 747 8280 Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation PO Box 1154, Oranjestad Aruba, Dutch Caribbean www.rainbowwarriors.net Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide www.projectparadigm.info NGO-Opensource: Creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide for Project Paradigm www.ngo-opensource.org MetaPortal: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development www.metaportal.info SemanticWebSoftware, part of NGO-Opensource to enable SW technologies in the Metaportal project www.semanticwebsoftware.info --- On *Wed, 4/29/09, Kingsley Idehen /kide...@openlinksw.com/* wrote: From: Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com Subject: Re: numeric data on the web, numeric web search To: Semantics-ProjectParadigm metadataport...@yahoo.com Cc: public-lod@w3.org, Wolfgang Orthuber orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de, semantic-web semantic-...@w3.org Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 7:50 PM Semantics-ProjectParadigm wrote: See http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/adding-search-power-to-public-data.html. This is the first intent at making large amounts of data available in structured formats. Although it is not linked data in all conceivable formats from all sources on the web, the fact that the E-Government Act is forcing US federal agencies public data to make their data more accessible could be the push required to get linked data initiatives to the next level. Time for a Semantic Web/Linked Data lobby in DC to make funding available to expand to all public domains.\ We can start here: http://www.thenationaldialogue.org/ideas/make-collecting-recovery-data-agile-using-semantic-web-technology :-) Kingsley Milton Ponson GSM: +297 747 8280 Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation PO Box 1154, Oranjestad Aruba, Dutch Caribbean www.rainbowwarriors.net Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide www..projectparadigm.info NGO-Opensource: Creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide for Project Paradigm www.ngo-opensource.org MetaPortal: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development www.metaportal.info SemanticWebSoftware, part of NGO-Opensource to enable SW technologies in the Metaportal project www.semanticwebsoftware.info --- On *Wed, 4/29/09, Wolfgang Orthuber /orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de /mc/compose?to=orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de/* wrote: From: Wolfgang Orthuber orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de /mc/compose?to=orthu...@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de Subject: numeric data on the web, numeric web search To: public-lod@w3.org /mc/compose?to=public-...@w3.org Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 3:25 PM Hello! We know that quantifiable objects play a central role in daily life. Nevertheless up to now quantifiable objects have in general no well defined globally machine readable and precise representation on the web. The following concept proposes a simple data structure called pattern for such representation of quantifiable objects in general which also allows their similarity search: * Numeric web search * Web search is up to now word
numeric data on the web, numeric web search
Hello! We know that quantifiable objects play a central role in daily life. Nevertheless up to now quantifiable objects have in general no well defined globally machine readable and precise representation on the web. The following concept proposes a simple data structure called pattern for such representation of quantifiable objects in general which also allows their similarity search: * Numeric web search * Web search is up to now word based. Additionally language independent similarity search of quantifiable objects is desirable. For well defined numeric representation of quantifiable objects a simple data structure called pattern is proposed, which contains a feature vector (a sequence of numbers) for representation of the object, and a pattern name which is a URI which uniquely identifies the kind of object which is represented by the feature vector. Pattern: Pattern name +feature vector (+ auxilliary data) Patterns with the same pattern name represent the same kind of object. Because the number of possible pattern names is not limited*, infinitely* many different kinds of quantifiable objects can be represented by patterns. (*only physically limited by finite time and energy) So the search terms are not words, but feature vectors in patterns which allow quantification of similarity. Feature vectors of patterns with the same pattern name are directly comparable using a given metric. At this similarities of the original quantifiable objects are mapped to spatial similarities of the feature vectors. So similarity search is possible by calculating distances: Objects are the more similar, the smaller the distance between the feature vectors of the representing patterns is. Due to the multitude of different kinds of quantifiable objects the work for development of efficient pattern resp. feature vector definitions for their representation is open ended. Global task sharing has the greatest potential: According to this suggestion every owner of an internet domain name abc.xyz gets the right to define feature vectors of all patterns with names abc.xyz/* (in well defined location abc.xyz/pat/*). Patterns are machine readable, uniformly comparable and searchable. They allow to search with the same search engine not only for text, but also for an increasing number of well-defined quantifiable objects on the web. This bundling of the search activity into one crawler and web database for all quantifiable objects is much more efficient than building and managing a database and a crawler for every kind of object. Numeric similarity search could be efficiently combined with conventional word based search. Details are described in http://www.orthuber.com/wpa.htm , don't hesitate to ask me further questions. It seems clear that introduction of the above conventions would have relevant advantages. Can this get support that we can step by step realize this? Regards Wolfgang Orthuber (Mathematician and Orthodontist at University of Kiel / Germany)
