[Fwd: 2nd CFP: ISWC'09 workshop on Ontology Matching (OM-2009)]
I don't normally forward conference CFPs, but it seems it would be useful to build some links with this community. Aw crap, can't believe I typed that. But you know what I mean... Dan Original Message Subject:2nd CFP: ISWC'09 workshop on Ontology Matching (OM-2009) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:28:34 +0200 From: Pavel Shvaiko pa...@dit.unitn.it To: pavel.shva...@infotn.it Apologies for cross-postings -- CALL FOR PAPERS -- The Fourth International Workshop on ONTOLOGY MATCHING (OM-2009) http://om2009.ontologymatching.org/ October 25, 2009, ISWC'09 Workshop Program, Fairfax, near Washington DC., USA BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES Ontology matching is a key interoperability enabler for the Semantic Web, as well as a useful tactic in some classical data integration tasks. It takes the ontologies as input and determines as output an alignment, that is, a set of correspondences between the semantically related entities of those ontologies. These correspondences can be used for various tasks, such as ontology merging and data translation. Thus, matching ontologies enables the knowledge and data expressed in the matched ontologies to interoperate. The workshop has three goals: 1. To bring together leaders from academia, industry and user institutions to assess how academic advances are addressing real-world requirements. The workshop will strive to improve academic awareness of industrial and final user needs, and therefore, direct research towards those needs. Simultaneously, the workshop will serve to inform industry and user representatives about existing research efforts that may meet their requirements. The workshop will also investigate how the ontology matching technology is going to evolve. 2. To conduct an extensive and rigorous evaluation of ontology matching approaches through the OAEI (Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative) 2009 campaign: http://oaei.ontologymatching.org/2009/ This year's OAEI campaign introduces two new tracks about oriented alignments and about instance matching (a timely topic for the linked data community). Therefore, the ontology matching evaluation initiative itself will provide a solid ground for discussion of how well the current approaches are meeting business needs. 3. To examine similarities and differences from database schema matching, which has received decades of attention but is just beginning to transition to mainstream tools. TOPICS of interest include but are not limited to: Business cases for matching; Requirements to matching from specific domains; Application of matching techniques in real-world scenarios; Formal foundations and frameworks for ontology matching; Large-scale ontology matching evaluation; Performance of matching techniques; Matcher selection and self-configuration; Uncertainty in ontology matching; User involvement (including both technical and organizational aspects); Explanations in matching; Social and collaborative matching; Alignment management; Reasoning with alignments; Matching for traditional applications (e.g., information integration); Matching for dynamic applications (e.g., peer-to-peer, web-services). SUBMISSIONS Contributions to the workshop can be made in terms of technical papers and posters/statements of interest addressing different issues of ontology matching as well as participating in the OAEI 2009 campaign. Technical papers should be not longer than 12 pages using the LNCS Style: http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,5-164-2-72376-0,00.html Posters/statements of interest should not exceed 2 pages and should be handled according to the guidelines for technical papers. All contributions should be prepared in PDF format and should be submitted through the workshop submission site at: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=om20090 Contributors to the OAEI 2009 campaign have to follow the campaign conditions and schedule at http://oaei.ontologymatching.org/2009/. IMPORTANT DATES FOR TECHNICAL PAPERS: August 11, 2009: Deadline for the submission of papers. September 6, 2009: Deadline for the notification of acceptance/rejection. October 2, 2009: Workshop camera ready copy submission. October 25, 2009: OM-2009, Westfields Conference Center, Fairfax, near Washington DC., USA. ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 1. Pavel Shvaiko (Main contact) TasLab, Informatica Trentina SpA, Italy 2. Jérôme Euzenat INRIA LIG, France 3. Fausto Giunchiglia University of Trento, Italy 4. Heiner Stuckenschmidt University of Mannheim, Germany 5. Natasha Noy Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, USA 6. Arnon Rosenthal The MITRE Corporation, USA PROGRAM COMMITTEE Yuan An, Drexel University, USA Zohra Bellahsene, LIRMM, France Paolo Besana, University of Edinburgh, UK Olivier Bodenreider, National Library of Medicine, USA
Re: Minting clean URLs to be hosted at a 3rd party
Hi Christopher, 2009/7/7 Christopher St John ckstj...@gmail.com: On a vaguely similar topic as the .htaccess discussion, I ran into a problem using a third party service to host some triples. I want my URLs to be pretty, and based on a domain that I control. Something like: http://nrhpdata.daytripr.com/site/72001552 (which describes a United States National Register of Historic Places site.) But when hosting at Talis[1] (or anywhere but nrhpdata.daytripr.com) I end up with something like: http://api.talis.com/stores/ckstjohn-dev1/meta?about=http://nrhpdata.daytripr.com/site/72001552 The describe service (/meta?about=...) provides a default linked data description for any URI that is mentioned in a store. I agree that you don't necessarily want to expose the mechanism for generating the RDF to the consumer, and so generally speaking you'll want to hide this from consumers. The approach that we and some of the other people who are hosting data with us have taken is to proxy the urls through from a more specific domain. This is relatively easy to do, although obviously requires that you have some technical smarts in order to set things up. We should shortly be publishing some recipes to illustrate how thats done in a number of ways. We're also planning to roll-out domain hosting to help further lower the barrier to publishing linked data (in fact we set on of these up for a customer yesterday) The redirector also looks like a useful service! Let me know when you're ready to move the data to the Connected Commons :) Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com
Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
Google has just changed the wording of the documentation: http://knol.google.com/k/google-rich-snippets/google-rich-snippets/32la2chf8l79m/1# The mentioning of cloaking risk is removed. While this is not final clearance, it is a nice sign that our concerns are heard. Best Martin Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: Dear all: Fyi - I am in contact with Google as for the clarification of what kind of empty div/span elements are considered acceptable in the context of RDFa. It may take a few days to get an official statement. Just so that you know it is being taken care of... Martin Mark Birbeck wrote: Hi Martin, b) download RDFa snippet that just represents the RDF/XML content (i.e. such that it does not have to be consolidated with the presentation level part of the Web page. By coincidence, I just read this: Hidden div's -- don't do it! It can be tempting to add all the content relevant for a rich snippet in one place on the page, mark it up, and then hide the entire block of text using CSS or other techniques. Don't do this! Mark up the content where it already exists. Google will not show content from hidden div's in Rich Snippets, and worse, this can be considered cloaking by Google's spam detection systems. [1] Regards, Mark [1] http://knol.google.com/k/google-rich-snippets/google-rich-snippets/32la2chf8l79m/1# -- -- martin hepp e-business web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: mh...@computer.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data! Webcast: http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp Tool for registering your business: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/ Overview article on Semantic Universe: http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe Project page and resources for developers: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ Tutorial materials: Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009 begin:vcard fn:Martin Hepp n:Hepp;Martin org:Bundeswehr University Munich;E-Business and Web Science Research Group adr:;;Werner-Heisenberg-Web 39;Neubiberg;;D-85577;Germany email;internet:mh...@computer.org tel;work:+49 89 6004 4217 tel;pager:skype: mfhepp url:http://www.heppnetz.de version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
On Jul 5, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote: OK, I'll have a go :-) Why did I think this would be fun to do on a sunny Sunday morning that has turned into afternoon? Here are the instructions: And here is why I cannot follow them. 1. Create a web-accessible directory, let's say foobar, with all your .rdf, .ttl, .ntriples and .html files in it. 2. Copy lodpub.php and path.php into it. OK so far... 3. Access path.php from your web server. I can see this file, but I cannot access it. Attempting to do so gives me the message Can not open file .htaccess Reason: Could not download file (403:HTTP/1.1 403 forbidden) I have checked with my system admin, and they tell me, Yes that is correct. You cannot access your .htaccess file. You cannot modify it or paste anything into it. Only we have access to it. No, we will not change this policy for you, no matter how important you think you are. Although they do not say it openly, the implicit message is, we don't give a damn what the W3C thinks you ought to be able to do on our website. Now, has anyone got any OTHER ideas? An idea that does not involve changing any actual code, and so can be done using a text editor on an HTML text file, would be a very good option. Pat Hayes 4. Follow the instruction to paste that text into .htaccess 5. You can remove path.php if you like, it was only there to help you get the .htaccess right. That should be it. The above text and files are at http://www.rkbexplorer.com/blog/?p=11 Of course, I expect that you can tell me all sorts of problems/ better ways, but I am hoping it works for many. Some explanation: We use a different method, and I have tried to extract the essence, and keep the code very simple. We trap all 404 (File not Found) in the directory, and then any requests coming in for non-existent files will generate a 303 with an extension added, depending on the Accept header. Note that you probably need the leading / followed by the full path from the domain root, otherwise it will just print out the text lodpub.php; (That is not what the apache specs seem to say, but it is what seems to happen). If you get Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request., then it means that web server is not finding your ErrorDocument . Put the file path.php in the same directory and point your browser at it - this will tell you what the path should be. Note that the httpd.conf (in /etc/httpd/conf) may not let your override, if your admins have tied things down really tight. Mine says: AllowOverride All Finally, at the moment, note that I think that apache default does not put the correct MIME type on rdf files, but that is a separate issue, and it makes no difference that the 303 happened. Best Hugh On 05/07/2009 01:52, Pierre-Antoine Champin swlists-040...@champin.net wrote: Le 03/07/2009 15:14, Danny Ayers a écrit : 2009/7/2 Bill Robertsb...@swirrl.com: I thought I'd give the .htaccess approach a try, to see what's involved in actually setting it up. I'm no expert on Apache, but I know the basics of how it works, I've got full access to a web server and I can read the online Apache documentation as well as the next person. I've tried similar, even stuff using PURLs - incredibly difficult to get right. (My downtime overrides all, so I'm not even sure if I got it right in the end) I really think we need a (copy paste) cheat sheet. Volunteers? (raising my hand) :)* Here is a quick python script that makes it easier (if not completely immediate). It may still requires a one-liner .htaccess, but one that (I think) is authorized by most webmasters. I guess a PHP version would not even require that .htaccess, but sorry, I'm not fluent in PHP ;) So, assuming you want to publish a vocabulary with an RDF and an HTML description at http://example.com/mydir/myvoc, you need to: 1. Make `myvoc` a directory at the place where your HTTP server will serve it at the desired URI. 2. Copy the script in this directory as 'index.cgi' (or 'index.wsgi' if your server as WSGI support). 3. In the same directory, put two files named 'index.html' and 'index.rdf' If it does not work now (it didn't for me),you have to tell your HTTP server that the directory index is index.wsgi. In apache, this is done by creating (if not present) a `.htaccess` file in the `myvoc` diractory, and adding the following line:: DirectoryIndex index.cgi (or `index.wsgi`, accordingly) There is more docs in the script itself. I think the more recipes (including for other httpds) we can provide with the script, the more useful it will be. So feel free to propose other ones. enjoy pa path.phplodpub.php IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202
Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
Hi Pat, I have checked with my system admin, and they tell me, Yes that is correct. You cannot access your .htaccess file. You cannot modify it or paste anything into it. Only we have access to it. No, we will not change this policy for you, no matter how important you think you are. Although they do not say it openly, the implicit message is, we don't give a damn what the W3C thinks you ought to be able to do on our website. I agree that this seems to be getting like Groundhog Day. :) The original point of this thread seemed to me to be saying that if .htaccess is the key to the semantic web, then it's never going to happen. I.e., .htaccess is a major bottleneck. The initial discussion around that theme was then followed by all sorts of discussions about how people could create scripts that would choose between different files, and deliver the correct one to the user. But the fact remained -- as you rightly point out here -- that you still need to modify .htaccess. Now, has anyone got any OTHER ideas? An idea that does not involve changing any actual code, and so can be done using a text editor on an HTML text file, would be a very good option. :) Did I mention RDFa? Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, webBackplane mark.birb...@webbackplane.com http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, London, EC2A 4RR)
Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
Mark, disclaimer: I have nothing against the RDFa solution; I just don't think that one size fits all :) ok, the solutions proposed here (by myself and others) still involve editing the .htaccess. However, compared to configuring HTTP redirections using mod_rewrite, they have two advantages: - they are shorter and hopefully easier to adapt - they are more likely to be allowed for end users So I think it is a progress. Furthermore, some of the recipes may work without even touching the .htaccess file, providing that - executable files are automatically considered as CGI scripts - index.php is automatically considered as a directory index One size does not fit all, that is why we should provide several simple recipes in which people may find the one that works for them. This is why I'm asking (again) to IIS-users and (other httpd)-users to provide non apache recipes as well. Of course, the publish it in RDFa recipe is a perfectly legal one ! pa Le 08/07/2009 15:13, Mark Birbeck a écrit : Hi Pat, I have checked with my system admin, and they tell me, Yes that is correct. You cannot access your .htaccess file. You cannot modify it or paste anything into it. Only we have access to it. No, we will not change this policy for you, no matter how important you think you are. Although they do not say it openly, the implicit message is, we don't give a damn what the W3C thinks you ought to be able to do on our website. I agree that this seems to be getting like Groundhog Day. :) The original point of this thread seemed to me to be saying that if .htaccess is the key to the semantic web, then it's never going to happen. I.e., .htaccess is a major bottleneck. The initial discussion around that theme was then followed by all sorts of discussions about how people could create scripts that would choose between different files, and deliver the correct one to the user. But the fact remained -- as you rightly point out here -- that you still need to modify .htaccess. Now, has anyone got any OTHER ideas? An idea that does not involve changing any actual code, and so can be done using a text editor on an HTML text file, would be a very good option. :) Did I mention RDFa? Regards, Mark
Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 15:13 +0100, Mark Birbeck wrote: The original point of this thread seemed to me to be saying that if .htaccess is the key to the semantic web, then it's never going to happen. It simply isn't the key to the semantic web though. .htaccess is a simple way to configure Apache to do interesting things. It happens to give you a lot of power in deciding how requests for URLs should be translated into responses of data. If you have hosting which allows you such advanced control over your settings, and you can create nicer URLs, then by all means do so - and not just for RDF, but for all your URLs. It's a Good Thing to do, and in my opinion, worth switching hosts to achieve. But all that isn't necessary to publish linked data. If you own example.com, you can upload foaf.rdf and give yourself a URI like: http://example.com/foaf.rdf#alice (Or foaf.ttl, foaf.xhtml, whatever.) No, that's not as elegant as http://example.com/alice with a connection negotiated 303 redirect to representations in various formats, but it does work, and it won't break anything. Let's not blow this all out of proportion. -- Toby A Inkster mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk http://tobyinkster.co.uk
[Ann] LinkedGeoData.org
Dear Colleagues, On behalf of the AKSW research group [1] I'm pleased to announce the first public version of the LinkedGeoData.org datasets and services. LinkedGeoData is a comprehensive dataset derived from the OpenStreetMap database covering RDF descriptions of more than 350 million spatial features (i.e. nodes, ways, relations). LinkedGeoData currently comprises RDF dumps, Linked Data and REST interfaces, links to DBpedia as well as a prototypical user interface for linked-geo-data browsing and authoring. More information can be found at: http://linkedgeodata.org Best, Sören Auer [1] http://aksw.org -- Sören Auer, AKSW/Computer Science Dept., University of Leipzig http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~auer, Skype: soerenauer
Re: [Ann] LinkedGeoData.org
On Wednesday, July 8, 2009, Sören Auer a...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de wrote: Dear Colleagues, On behalf of the AKSW research group [1] I'm pleased to announce the first public version of the LinkedGeoData.org datasets and services. LinkedGeoData is a comprehensive dataset derived from the OpenStreetMap database covering RDF descriptions of more than 350 million spatial features (i.e. nodes, ways, relations). LinkedGeoData currently comprises RDF dumps, Linked Data and REST interfaces, links to DBpedia as well as a prototypical user interface for linked-geo-data browsing and authoring. Very nice. How long do you think it will take for the entire dataset to be available? Open streetmap are voting soon on whether to adopt the open data commons sharealike database license. If they adopt it will you also adopt it for this data? Sören Auer Ian [1] http://aksw.org -- Sören Auer, AKSW/Computer Science Dept., University of Leipzig http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~auer, Skype: soerenauer
Re: [Ann] LinkedGeoData.org
Ian Davis wrote: Very nice. How long do you think it will take for the entire dataset to be available? That might take another week or so, but for most use cases the elements data set should be sufficient, since it contains the most interesting information. I guess the complete dataset will be a real challenge for most triple stores - not that they won't be able to store the data, but efficient querying will be very challenging and I even have some doubts that it is reasonable to use this data with a triple store at all. But we will try to make it available anyway ;-) Open streetmap are voting soon on whether to adopt the open data commons sharealike database license. If they adopt it will you also adopt it for this data? Sure! --Sören
Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
On Wednesday, July 8, 2009, Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote: On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 15:13 +0100, Mark Birbeck wrote: The original point of this thread seemed to me to be saying that if .htaccess is the key to the semantic web, then it's never going to happen. It simply isn't the key to the semantic web though. .htaccess is a simple way to configure Apache to do interesting things. It happens to give you a lot of power in deciding how requests for URLs should be translated into responses of data. If you have hosting which allows you such advanced control over your settings, and you can create nicer URLs, then by all means do so - and not just for RDF, but for all your URLs. It's a Good Thing to do, and in my opinion, worth switching hosts to achieve. But all that isn't necessary to publish linked data. If you own example.com, you can upload foaf.rdf and give yourself a URI like: http://example.com/foaf.rdf#alice (Or foaf.ttl, foaf.xhtml, whatever.) This just works and is how the html web grew. Write a document and save it into a publuc spaxe. Fancy stuff like pretty URIs need more work but are not at all necessary for linked data or the semantic web. Let's not blow this all out of proportion. Hear hear! -- Toby A Inkster mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk http://tobyinkster.co.uk
Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 15:50 +0100, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: [ . . . ] ok, the solutions proposed here (by myself and others) still involve editing the .htaccess. Once again, use of a 303-redirect service such as http://thing-described-by.org/ or http://t-d-b.org/ does not require *any* configuration or .htaccess editing. It does not address the problem of setting the content type correctly, but it *does* provide an easy way to generate 303 redirects, in conformance with Cool URIs for the Semantic Web: http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#r303gendocument Hmm, I thought the use of a 303-redirect service was mentioned in Cool URIs for the Semantic Web, but in looking back, I see it was in Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies: http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#redirect Maybe it should be mentioned in a future version of the Cool URIs document as well. -- 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: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
Sorry to hear that, Pat. On 08/07/2009 14:51, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: On Jul 5, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote: OK, I'll have a go :-) Why did I think this would be fun to do on a sunny Sunday morning that has turned into afternoon? Here are the instructions: And here is why I cannot follow them. 1. Create a web-accessible directory, let's say foobar, with all your .rdf, .ttl, .ntriples and .html files in it. 2. Copy lodpub.php and path.php into it. OK so far... 3. Access path.php from your web server. I can see this file, but I cannot access it. Attempting to do so gives me the message Can not open file .htaccess Reason: Could not download file (403:HTTP/1.1 403 forbidden) Just a clarification, which probably doesn't help you, but just might. When you try to access path.php, you should either get some text in which the string htaccess appears (success), or some indication that you cannot access path.php or run php. I see no reason why you would get the message above trying to access path.php. (Unless somehow the attempt to run php has resulted in an attempt to access .htaccess because of a local issue, in which case the system is badly configured in its error reporting.) I guess that what you have seen is the result of creating a file called .htaccess on your local machine, and then trying to upload it to the server, using some sort of web-based upload facility? Best Hugh I have checked with my system admin, and they tell me, Yes that is correct. You cannot access your .htaccess file. You cannot modify it or paste anything into it. Only we have access to it. No, we will not change this policy for you, no matter how important you think you are. Although they do not say it openly, the implicit message is, we don't give a damn what the W3C thinks you ought to be able to do on our website. Now, has anyone got any OTHER ideas? An idea that does not involve changing any actual code, and so can be done using a text editor on an HTML text file, would be a very good option. Pat Hayes 4. Follow the instruction to paste that text into .htaccess 5. You can remove path.php if you like, it was only there to help you get the .htaccess right. That should be it. The above text and files are at http://www.rkbexplorer.com/blog/?p=11 Of course, I expect that you can tell me all sorts of problems/ better ways, but I am hoping it works for many. Some explanation: We use a different method, and I have tried to extract the essence, and keep the code very simple. We trap all 404 (File not Found) in the directory, and then any requests coming in for non-existent files will generate a 303 with an extension added, depending on the Accept header. Note that you probably need the leading / followed by the full path from the domain root, otherwise it will just print out the text lodpub.php; (That is not what the apache specs seem to say, but it is what seems to happen). If you get Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request., then it means that web server is not finding your ErrorDocument . Put the file path.php in the same directory and point your browser at it - this will tell you what the path should be. Note that the httpd.conf (in /etc/httpd/conf) may not let your override, if your admins have tied things down really tight. Mine says: AllowOverride All Finally, at the moment, note that I think that apache default does not put the correct MIME type on rdf files, but that is a separate issue, and it makes no difference that the 303 happened. Best Hugh On 05/07/2009 01:52, Pierre-Antoine Champin swlists-040...@champin.net wrote: Le 03/07/2009 15:14, Danny Ayers a écrit : 2009/7/2 Bill Robertsb...@swirrl.com: I thought I'd give the .htaccess approach a try, to see what's involved in actually setting it up. I'm no expert on Apache, but I know the basics of how it works, I've got full access to a web server and I can read the online Apache documentation as well as the next person. I've tried similar, even stuff using PURLs - incredibly difficult to get right. (My downtime overrides all, so I'm not even sure if I got it right in the end) I really think we need a (copy paste) cheat sheet. Volunteers? (raising my hand) :)* Here is a quick python script that makes it easier (if not completely immediate). It may still requires a one-liner .htaccess, but one that (I think) is authorized by most webmasters. I guess a PHP version would not even require that .htaccess, but sorry, I'm not fluent in PHP ;) So, assuming you want to publish a vocabulary with an RDF and an HTML description at http://example.com/mydir/myvoc, you need to: 1. Make `myvoc` a directory at the place where your HTTP server will serve it at the desired URI. 2. Copy the script in this directory as 'index.cgi' (or 'index.wsgi' if
Re: Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
On Wed 08/07/09 5:08 PM , Olivier Rossel olivier.ros...@gmail.com sent: Do you mean that all deferencable URIs of a RDF document should have their domain name to end with t-d-b.org, so their resolution leads to the TDB server which redirects to the final location? No, I'm not suggesting that *all* deferenceable RDF URIs should use t-d-b.org. I'm just pointing out that it is an alternative if you cannot configure your own server to do 303 redirects. Using it does require putting http://t-d-b.org?; at the beginning of your URI, so if you do not want to do that then you should use a different approach. To be clear, if you use this approach, then instead of writing a URI such as http://example/mydata.rdf you would write it as http://t-d-b.org?http://example/mydata.rdf and if that URI is dereferenced, the 303-redirect service will automatically return a 303 redirect to http://example/mydata.rdf David Booth On Wednesday, July 8, 2009, David Booth da...@dbooth .org wrote: On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 15:50 +0100, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: [ . . . ] ok, the solutions proposed here (by myself and others) still involve editing the .htaccess. Once again, use of a 303-redirect service such as http://thing-described-by.org/ or http://t-d-b.org/ does not require *any* configuration or .htaccess editing. It does not address the problem of setting the content type correctly, but it *does* provide an easy way to generate 303 redirects, in conformance with Cool URIs for the Semantic Web: http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#r303gendocument Hmm, I thought the use of a 303-redirect service was mentioned in Cool URIs for the Semantic Web, but in looking back, I see it was in Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies: http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#redirect Maybe it should be mentioned in a future version of the Cool URIs document as well. -- 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: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
On 8 Jul 2009, at 19:58, Seth Russell wrote: Is it not true that everything past the hash (#alice) is not transmitted back to the server when a browser clicks on a hyperlink ? If that is true, then the server would not be able to serve anything different if a browser clicked upon http:// example.com/foaf.rdf or if they clicked upon http://example.com/ foaf.rdf#alice . Indeed - the server doesn't see the fragment. If that is true, and it probably isn't, then is not the Semantic Web crippled from using that techniqe to distinguish between resources and at the same time hyper linking between those different resources? Not at all. Is the web of documents crippled because the server can't distinguish between requests for http://example.com/document.html and http:// example.com/document.html#part2 ? Of course it isn't - the server doesn't need to distinguish between them - it serves up the same web page either way and lets the user agent distinguish. Hash URIs are very valuable in linked data, precisely *because* they can't be directly requested from a server - they allow us to bypass the whole HTTP 303 issue. -- Toby A Inkster mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk http://tobyinkster.co.uk
Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
On 09/07/2009 00:38, Toby A Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote: On 8 Jul 2009, at 19:58, Seth Russell wrote: Is it not true that everything past the hash (#alice) is not transmitted back to the server when a browser clicks on a hyperlink ? If that is true, then the server would not be able to serve anything different if a browser clicked upon http:// example.com/foaf.rdf or if they clicked upon http://example.com/ foaf.rdf#alice . Indeed - the server doesn't see the fragment. If that is true, and it probably isn't, then is not the Semantic Web crippled from using that techniqe to distinguish between resources and at the same time hyper linking between those different resources? Not at all. Is the web of documents crippled because the server can't distinguish between requests for http://example.com/document.html and http:// example.com/document.html#part2 ? Of course it isn't - the server doesn't need to distinguish between them - it serves up the same web page either way and lets the user agent distinguish. Hash URIs are very valuable in linked data, precisely *because* they can't be directly requested from a server - they allow us to bypass the whole HTTP 303 issue. Mind you, it does mean that you should make sure that you don't put too many LD URIs in one document. If dbpedia decided to represent all the RDF in one document, and then use hash URIs, it would be somewhat problematic. -- Toby A Inkster mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk http://tobyinkster.co.uk
Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
Hi Martin, all, I would like to point to something that might be useful for RDF data publishing. The ReDeFer RDF2HTML service (http://rhizomik.net/redefer/) renders input RDF/XML data as HTML for user interaction (e.g. as used in http://rhizomik.net/rhizomer/). Now, it also embeds RDFa that facilitates retrieving the source RDF back. I've tested it with a pair of GoodRelations examples: http://rhizomik.net/redefer-services/rdf2html?rdf=http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/minimalExampleGoodRelations.owl http://rhizomik.net/redefer-services/rdf2html?rdf=http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/goodrelationsExamplesPrimerFinalOWL.owl I've been able to check that it works for these examples by comparing the triples generated by RDFa Distiller and RDFa Bookmarklet from the previous HTML+RDFa pages to those generated by any23 and Triplr from the original OWL files. The generated HTML+RDFa can be then used in order to publish RDF just by CutPaste, e.g. using an online editor like FCKEditor. This has been the procedure followed in order to publish the RDF in http://rhizomik.net/redefer/rdf2html/minimalExampleGoodRelations/ The HTML+RDFa view might be customised using CSS and made more usable if the source RDF contains rdfs:labels for the involved resources, which are used instead of the last part of the URIs if available. In any case, if it is no to be shown to the user, it is easier to just model triples using hidden spans instead of using this service... Best regards, Roberto García http://rhizomik.net/~roberto PD: Caution, this is work in progress. Feedback appreciated :-) On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Martin Hepp (UniBW)martin.h...@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote: Google has just changed the wording of the documentation: http://knol.google.com/k/google-rich-snippets/google-rich-snippets/32la2chf8l79m/1# The mentioning of cloaking risk is removed. While this is not final clearance, it is a nice sign that our concerns are heard. Best Martin Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: Dear all: Fyi - I am in contact with Google as for the clarification of what kind of empty div/span elements are considered acceptable in the context of RDFa. It may take a few days to get an official statement. Just so that you know it is being taken care of... Martin Mark Birbeck wrote: Hi Martin, b) download RDFa snippet that just represents the RDF/XML content (i.e. such that it does not have to be consolidated with the presentation level part of the Web page. By coincidence, I just read this: Hidden div's -- don't do it! It can be tempting to add all the content relevant for a rich snippet in one place on the page, mark it up, and then hide the entire block of text using CSS or other techniques. Don't do this! Mark up the content where it already exists. Google will not show content from hidden div's in Rich Snippets, and worse, this can be considered cloaking by Google's spam detection systems. [1] Regards, Mark [1] http://knol.google.com/k/google-rich-snippets/google-rich-snippets/32la2chf8l79m/1# -- -- martin hepp e-business web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: mh...@computer.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data! Webcast: http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp Tool for registering your business: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/ Overview article on Semantic Universe: http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe Project page and resources for developers: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ Tutorial materials: Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009
Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
In MySemanticProfile I use both RDFa and XHTML + RDF/XML using content negotiation (N3/Turtle will be there at some point) plus it also contains Microformats (when applicable). I think that if your goal is to publish it to public, publish in all formats, including CSV or vcard as long as there is at least one tool that will potentially consume this information. Now the question of why would somebody use any of the formats is a different story and this question applies to every format including HTML (after all I have a regular homepage so I don't need another HTML page to display data to people, just to computers). Thank you, Sergey -- Sergey Chernyshev http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:09 AM, bill.robe...@planet.nl wrote: I've been trying to weigh up the pros and cons of these two approaches to understand more clearly when you might want to use each. I hope that the list members will be able to provide me with the benefit of their experience and insight! So the situation is that I have some information on a topic and I want to make it available both in machine readable form and in human readable form, for example a company wanting to publish information on its products, or a government department wanting to publish some statistics. I can either: 1) include 'human' and 'machine' representations in the same web page using RDFa 2) have an HTML representation and a separate RDF/XML representation (or N3 or whatever) and decide which to provide via HTTP content negotiation. So which should I use? I suppose it depends on how the information will be produced, maintained and consumed. Some generic requirements/wishes: - I only want to have one place where the data is managed. - I want people to be able to browse around a nicely formatted representation of the information, ie a regular web page, probably incorporating all sorts of other stuff as well as the data itself. - I don't want to type lots of XHTML or XML. - I want the data to be found and used by search engines and aggregators. The approach presented by Halb, Raimond and Hausenblas ( http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2008/papers/06-halb-raimond-building-linked-data.pdf) seems attractive: to summarise crudely, auto-generate some RDFa from your database, but provide an RDF/XML dump too. On the other hand I find that RDFa leads to rather messy markup - I prefer the 'cleanliness' of the separate representations. For any non-trivial amount of data, then we will need a templating engine of some sort for either approach. I suppose what may tip the balance is that Yahoo and Google are starting to make use of RDFa, but AFAIK they are not (yet) doing anything with classic content-negotiated linked data. Anyone care to argue for one approach or the other? I suppose the answer may well be it depends :-) But if so, what does it depend on? Thanks in advance Bill Roberts
