Tod, Let me change my statement, "exposing raw RDF is not end-user friendly".
The things with triple tags is that they are supported by the OSM-platform out of the box. When querying a OHM element you has to parse tags, using a triple tag system for relations allows you to do the same for relations. RDF as a value or tag forces you to implement both tag parsing and RDF/RDF data models(Such as OWL and EDM). // Albin On Apr 11, 2015 12:44 AM, "[email protected]" < [email protected]> wrote: > I wouldn't go so far as to say that "RDF is not end-user friendly". I > think that's on the UI/UX failures up to this point. The subject + > predicate + object model can be displayed and UI elements designed in a way > that makes the representation of relationships easy to document. Autofills > with short notations, for instance, solve a lot of the ambiguities of > deciding "hmm same_as vs. is_instance_of". I guess what I'm trying to say > is that the unfriendliness of RDF to an end-user isn't necessarily or > primarily because of the model for assertions but the UIs that have been > attempted thus far by non-designers. Also, I think Albin is on the right > track by investigating the triple tag/machine tag format ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata)#Triple_tags) for expressing > complex relationships. > > Cheers! > > –Tod > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Albin Larsson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I would like to go with the ohm:uri:same_as and a ohm:uri:is_instance_of, >> the idea it self is based on the idea that a mapper or end user will never >> see a format such as RDF or JSONLD. >> >> Your first example would be a is_instance_of. >> >> As I wrote earlier we should support RDF/other formats, but not by force >> the mapper to use them, ohm:uri:same_as would be equal to owl:sameAs(I >> think(but has to look into it)) so developers would be translating the >> tagging to RDF based on a schema we should provide. Then by creating some >> middleman software and a basic API we could provide RDF/JSONLD/... output >> and give developers a easier life. >> >> Would take maybe a week of work to create such a API. >> >> So short story, owl:sameAs has a equal relation tag, that tag just has >> to be translated. This is done because RDF is not end-user friendly. Try >> finding a place to enter RDF at Wikidata... >> >> // >> Albin >> >> 2015-04-10 22:30 GMT+02:00 Rob H Warren <[email protected]>: >> >>> Albin, >>> >>> owl:sameAs would allow us to link the object in OHM space to other >>> databases, such as DB/Wikipedia/WikiData: >>> >>> Linking the OHM version of say >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct >>> >>> Or linking the ww1 trenches within OHM to their Muninn equivalent. >>> >>> Or linking greek structures with their pelagios equivalent >>> http://pelagios-project.blogspot.ca/ >>> >>> Or linking modern administrative locations with their geonames,org >>> location. >>> >>> Since a LOD version of OHM will be positioned to be the equivalent to >>> dbpedia in historical GIS terms, the use of owl:sameAs would enable people >>> to discover non-OHM resources since it is the most obvious LOD data set to >>> link to. >>> >>> -rhw >>> >>> >>> > On Apr 6, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Albin Larsson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Sorry for the delay answering, I have been busy with other stuff... >>> > >>> > About the OGC idea I can't say more then that it would be devastating >>> to break the existing tools, the existing OHM instances(the rails-fork) is >>> hard enough to maintain. >>> > >>> > Rob could you explain future why owl:sameAs is needed and provide a >>> use case? I'm not getting the idea... >>> > >>> > // >>> > Albin >>> > >>> > >>> > 2015-04-02 15:55 GMT+02:00 Rob H Warren <[email protected]>: >>> > Albin, >>> > >>> > I'd add owl:sameAs integration to the list of tags so that we can use >>> OHM as a resource discovery mechanism. -rhw >>> > >>> > >>> > > On Mar 27, 2015, at 4:12 PM, [email protected] >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:57:36 +0100 >>> > > From: Albin Larsson <[email protected]> >>> > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> > > Subject: [OHM] Linked Data >>> > > Message-ID: >>> > > <CAM-QGEmn+WwHCK4eee24Nn=+rPvxjFdSLqJ5=fqS33m= >>> [email protected]> >>> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>> > > >>> > > My thoughts on linked data in OpenHistoricalMap and how I do it: >>> > > >>> > > >>> http://abbe98.github.io/blog/2015/03/26/mapping-the-past-with-linked-data-in-openhistoricalmap/ >>> > > >>> > > Feedback, ideas, thoughts? >>> > > >>> > > // >>> > > Albin >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Historic mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic >> >> > > > -- > Tod Robbins > Digital Asset Manager, MLIS > todrobbins.com | @todrobbins <http://www.twitter.com/#!/todrobbins> >
_______________________________________________ Historic mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
