Let me refine it further ;) "exposing raw RDF is not meant for the end-user".
-rhw > On Apr 11, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Albin Larsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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=dw1...@mail.gmail.com> > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Historic mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
