Re: Top three levels of Dewey Decimal Classification published as linked data
Panzer,Michael wrote: [snip] Another unrelated thing I noticed is that the RDFa doesn't seem to be usable by the RDFa Distiller: http://tinyurl.com/nm8lfa The problem here is that pyRdfa doesn't seem to send the correct Accept header. Since dewey.info defaults to RDF/XML if it doesn't see text/html or application/xhtml+rdfa in the request, pyRdfa doesn't see any RDFa at all. You have to skip conneg and use the URL for the HTML-specific resource directly, e.g. http://dewey.info/class/641/about.html. http://tinyurl.com/kjpxmt Right, that was indeed a bug (to be honest, I never thought of that, my mistake:-). But it works now, both with http://dewey.info/class/641/ and http://dewey.info/class/641/about See http://tinyurl.com/kt67ot and http://tinyurl.com/luouaw respectively. Thanks! Ivan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Top three levels of Dewey Decimal Classification published as linked data
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Panzer,Michaelpanz...@oclc.org wrote: I think this a general difficulty with the SKOS model. What is a SKOS concept? Is it a thing (unit of thought) or an information resource? It seems that it can be both, depending what information you provide and how you refer to it. For example, it could be argued that the concept http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85137241#concept really refers to the idea of trees in general, or (probably more in line with common opinion) to the idea of trees as framed as an element of the controlled vocabulary LCSH. It's interesting that you bring this up, since we were just having a debate about it in the #code4lib IRC channel given a decision I had made modeling some MARC data. My design had a distinction between a person as a creator (i.e. a MARC 100 field) vs. a person as a subject (a MARC 600 field) -- that is to say, they had distinct URIs (although, really, the SKOS concept was the same URI with #concept tacked to the end). See here for an example: http://github.com/rsinger/marc2rdf-modeler/blob/75cc48e803f7953292fbb770741a2c14b096cc4d/visual.ttl My rationale was that an LCSH heading comprises other meaning than the literal thing. That is to say, the subject of William Shakespeare neither wrote the 'The Tempest' nor was a contemporary of Chistopher Marlowe. This: http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85056381 is not quite the same as: http://sws.geonames.org/6619202/ At least not in my mind (and I could very well be wrong): the latter is a literal: this point represents a canyon in Arizona located at N 35° 58' 26'' W 113° 46' 8''. The former stands for a more abstract interpretation of that that can comprise of more than just the rocks, ditch and donkeys. Rob Styles made an interesting rebuttal to my point about William Shakespeare (re: the MARC 100 and 600 fields): they are actually describing the same thing, but it's not what we think of as a person. It's a bibliographic identity (which is why Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain are distinct from each other). This is an interesting (and, in my mind, rational) interpretation, but I'm not sure how it then affects modeling the creator resources if they aren't people but bibliographic identities. Anyway, yes, I think some more thought needs to go into Dewey and LCSH's relationship to the real world. -Ross.
Re: Publications on SOA and linked data?
On 24 Aug 2009, at 13:31, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: Web services and linked data seem highly related: Many of the linked data introductions feel ReSTful, as does Tabulator's use of SPARQL/ update. But, while there are many blog posts out there that briefly touch on this topic, I have yet to find a publication that paints a complete and coherent picture. Is anyone aware of such publications (or currently writing one ;-) ? There are semantic web services, but I would expect linked data web services to be different. Typical linked data deployments can be seen as read-only web services that embrace the REST style (as opposed to RPC/SOAP-style services), and deliver RDF, and use separate URIs to identify publication units (documents) and domain entities. Every linked data deployment is a web service, in the same sense that every website is a web service that delivers HTML. As such, linked data can certainly be used to implement SOA *in certain cases*. I think it should work well when the ultimate goal is around search and data warehousing, and it's probably not a good fit if it's mostly about transactional data. I think linked data is particularly well suited to situations where the number and the details, schema etc., of the individual services is not known in advance. There's quite some mismatch in terminology though, because in SOA there's a focus on the messages that are exchanged between services, while in linked data there's a focus on the data that's held in the services. SOA is about integrating systems by decomposing them into services; linked data is about integrating systems into a unified information space. I'm not aware of a publication that provides a nice overview of these issues. Semantic Web Services are something else altogether. Best, Richard Greetings, Axel -- Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de http://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/people/staff/rauschmayer/axel-rauschmayer/ http://2ality.blogspot.com/ http://hypergraphs.de/
RDF and FSLDM ( Financial Services Logical Data Model )
Hi all, Has anyone seen, thought, or heard about a FSLDM ( Financial Services Logical Data Model ) OWL ontology/vocab? Regards, A -- Aldo Bucchi skype:aldo.bucchi http://www.univrz.com/ http://aldobucchi.com/ PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This message is only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not distribute or copy this communication, by e-mail or otherwise. Instead, please notify us immediately by return e-mail.
Re: Top three levels of Dewey Decimal Classification published as linked data
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Ross Singerrossfsin...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, yes, I think some more thought needs to go into Dewey and LCSH's relationship to the real world. I think http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/3282565132 might be relevant here The classification that danbri uses in that diagram is quite interesting. I paraphrase them as: things, types, web documents (or information resources) and conceptualizations. I'm not attempting to define them at the moment. I tried to enumerate how these four categories interelate: things - things via general rdf properties things - types via rdf:type things - web documents via foaf:topic/foaf:isTopicOf/rdfs:seeAlso web documents - types via rdf:type, maybe via foaf:topic if the document is describing the type web documents - conceptualizations via dc:subject web documents - web documents via rdfs:seeAlso etc types - types via rdfs:subClassOf conceptualizations - conceptualizations via skos:broader/skos:narrower/etc. A couple were missing: For things - conceptualizations I recently created ov:category [1] and ov:isCategoryOf [2] which I used in productdb.org to link things with their categories (e.g. http://productdb.org/2006-honda-element). Using dc:subject didn't seem right - does a model of car have a subject? This is what I would suggest you use to relate an author to a category about them. The other one that is missing is types - conceptualization SKOS says there is no defined relationship [3]. Interestingly the RDF Semantics has this to say [4]: RDFS classes can be considered to be rather more than simple sets; they can be thought of as 'classifications' or 'concepts' which have a robust notion of identity which goes beyond a simple extensional correspondence. -Ross. Ian [1] http://open.vocab.org/terms/category [2] http://open.vocab.org/terms/isCategoryOf [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L896 [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#technote
