dealing with attachments / images..
Hi All, Background, Ihave a sioc:Post which (when rendered as html) visually contains 3 images, with captions and licenses, creators etc. q: how to deal with these images in rdf terms..? if anybody is doing this already, please do share. immediate thoughts are that: image rdf:type foaf:Image ; rdf:type sioc:Item ; sioc:about path/to/image.jpg ; sioc:link path/to/image.jpg ; foaf:thumbnail path/to/image_thumb.jpg ; foaf:content description of image@en ; where I'm running short is how to express height/width and it there are any other ontologies with a class of Image and related properties for width/height etc. kinda like mrss i guess. regards thanks in advance Nathan
Re: [pedantic-web] dealing with attachments / images..
Antoine, Thanks indeed :-) that's answered pretty much all my ontology finding related questions! - and good of you to see right to the root cause of my problem. Regards, Nathan Antoine Zimmermann wrote: Nathan, pedants, A rather general remark in reaction to your question. In order to find ontologies and terms of ontologies (classes, properties), you can use ontology search engines such as OntoSelect [1], Watson [2], OntoSearch [3], OntoSearch2 [4] or more general Semantic Web search engines such as Falcons [5], SWSE [6], Sindice [7] or Swoogle [8]. One drawback of these systems is that they tend to put forward big ontologies that are not necessarily popular and which may not be the best to use for the Linked Data community. DERI is also working on an ontology-term-search engine, but I'm not sure the prototype we have is publicly available. [1] OntoSelect: http://olp.dfki.de/ontoselect [2] Watson: http://watson.kmi.open.ac.uk/ [3] OntoSearch: http://eprints.aktors.org/369/ [4] OntoSearch2: http://www.ontosearch.org/ [5] Falcons: http://iws.seu.edu.cn/services/falcons/objectsearch/index.jsp [6] SWSE: http://swse.org/ [7] Sindice: http://sindice.com/ [8] Swoogle: http://swoogle.umbc.edu/ When it comes to finding ontologies, Watson is pretty good. When it comes to finding concepts, Falcons is, AFAICT, better. For finding instances, SWSE is good. For finding Semantic Web documents in general, Sindice may be a good choice. I'm wondering if this should be referenced on the Pedantic Web website. Regards, AZ. 2009/11/30 Nathan nat...@webr3.org: Hi All, Background, Ihave a sioc:Post which (when rendered as html) visually contains 3 images, with captions and licenses, creators etc. q: how to deal with these images in rdf terms..? if anybody is doing this already, please do share. immediate thoughts are that: image rdf:type foaf:Image ; rdf:type sioc:Item ; sioc:about path/to/image.jpg ; sioc:link path/to/image.jpg ; foaf:thumbnail path/to/image_thumb.jpg ; foaf:content description of image@en ; where I'm running short is how to express height/width and it there are any other ontologies with a class of Image and related properties for width/height etc. kinda like mrss i guess. regards thanks in advance Nathan
Re: [pedantic-web] dealing with attachments / images..
Nathan, pedants, A rather general remark in reaction to your question. In order to find ontologies and terms of ontologies (classes, properties), you can use ontology search engines such as OntoSelect [1], Watson [2], OntoSearch [3], OntoSearch2 [4] or more general Semantic Web search engines such as Falcons [5], SWSE [6], Sindice [7] or Swoogle [8]. One drawback of these systems is that they tend to put forward big ontologies that are not necessarily popular and which may not be the best to use for the Linked Data community. DERI is also working on an ontology-term-search engine, but I'm not sure the prototype we have is publicly available. [1] OntoSelect: http://olp.dfki.de/ontoselect [2] Watson: http://watson.kmi.open.ac.uk/ [3] OntoSearch: http://eprints.aktors.org/369/ [4] OntoSearch2: http://www.ontosearch.org/ [5] Falcons: http://iws.seu.edu.cn/services/falcons/objectsearch/index.jsp [6] SWSE: http://swse.org/ [7] Sindice: http://sindice.com/ [8] Swoogle: http://swoogle.umbc.edu/ When it comes to finding ontologies, Watson is pretty good. When it comes to finding concepts, Falcons is, AFAICT, better. For finding instances, SWSE is good. For finding Semantic Web documents in general, Sindice may be a good choice. I'm wondering if this should be referenced on the Pedantic Web website. Regards, AZ. 2009/11/30 Nathan nat...@webr3.org: Hi All, Background, Ihave a sioc:Post which (when rendered as html) visually contains 3 images, with captions and licenses, creators etc. q: how to deal with these images in rdf terms..? if anybody is doing this already, please do share. immediate thoughts are that: image rdf:type foaf:Image ; rdf:type sioc:Item ; sioc:about path/to/image.jpg ; sioc:link path/to/image.jpg ; foaf:thumbnail path/to/image_thumb.jpg ; foaf:content description of image@en ; where I'm running short is how to express height/width and it there are any other ontologies with a class of Image and related properties for width/height etc. kinda like mrss i guess. regards thanks in advance Nathan -- --AZ
Re: [pedantic-web] dealing with attachments / images..
Hi all, I just want to mention that there are search engines and repositories for the bioscience domain such as: - EBI lookup service http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ontology-lookup/ - Bioportal at the NCBO : http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ - Obofoundry: http://www.obofoundry.org/ On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Antoine Zimmermann antoine.zimmerm...@gmail.com wrote: Nathan, pedants, A rather general remark in reaction to your question. In order to find ontologies and terms of ontologies (classes, properties), you can use ontology search engines such as OntoSelect [1], Watson [2], OntoSearch [3], OntoSearch2 [4] or more general Semantic Web search engines such as Falcons [5], SWSE [6], Sindice [7] or Swoogle [8]. One drawback of these systems is that they tend to put forward big ontologies that are not necessarily popular and which may not be the best to use for the Linked Data community. DERI is also working on an ontology-term-search engine, but I'm not sure the prototype we have is publicly available. [1] OntoSelect: http://olp.dfki.de/ontoselect [2] Watson: http://watson.kmi.open.ac.uk/ [3] OntoSearch: http://eprints.aktors.org/369/ [4] OntoSearch2: http://www.ontosearch.org/ [5] Falcons: http://iws.seu.edu.cn/services/falcons/objectsearch/index.jsp [6] SWSE: http://swse.org/ [7] Sindice: http://sindice.com/ [8] Swoogle: http://swoogle.umbc.edu/ When it comes to finding ontologies, Watson is pretty good. When it comes to finding concepts, Falcons is, AFAICT, better. For finding instances, SWSE is good. For finding Semantic Web documents in general, Sindice may be a good choice. I'm wondering if this should be referenced on the Pedantic Web website. Regards, AZ. 2009/11/30 Nathan nat...@webr3.org: Hi All, Background, Ihave a sioc:Post which (when rendered as html) visually contains 3 images, with captions and licenses, creators etc. q: how to deal with these images in rdf terms..? if anybody is doing this already, please do share. immediate thoughts are that: image rdf:type foaf:Image ; rdf:type sioc:Item ; sioc:about path/to/image.jpg ; sioc:link path/to/image.jpg ; foaf:thumbnail path/to/image_thumb.jpg ; foaf:content description of image@en ; where I'm running short is how to express height/width and it there are any other ontologies with a class of Image and related properties for width/height etc. kinda like mrss i guess. regards thanks in advance Nathan -- --AZ -- Carlo
Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage
2009/12/1 Hogan, Aidan aidan.ho...@deri.org: Hi Kingsley, For the sake of others. How do you describe and information resource via an RDF graph that is supposed to play well with Linked Data principles? If I understand the intent of your question, you are asking how an information resource should be identified -- i.e., what's a suitable URI? To clarify first: what's wrong with -- e.g. -- simply [1]? For me, this fits well with [2]. How does it not play well with Linked Data principles? Referring back to earlier: using [1] as the information-resource URI to represent the document returned is perfectly okay according to linked data principles: 1. Use URIs as names for things [yep] 2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names. [yep] 3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the standards (RDF, SPARQL) [yep] 4. Include links to other URIs so that they can discover more things. [not directly applicable] Cheers, Aidan [1] http://johnbreslin.com/blog/index.php?sioc_type=site [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources My impression of the entire debacle is that it is designed to make sure that every document has at least two identifiers so that reasoning systems do not have to distinguish between details about the delivery of the document, and details contained in the document. Some rdf harvesting engines want to be able to say URL retrievedWithhttpStatusCode 200, for example, and the flow on effect is that you now apparently can't use the documents URL for any other purpose because the extra httpStatusCode triple may get added into the RDF store without a different graph URI. If the statements are merged in a single graph, there is no way to separate it after that point because reasoning engines, in this case description logics, weren't designed with this multiplicity in mind. Interestingly, everyone is okay with adding URL retrievedWithhttpStatusCode 303, because that particular magic value is judged to be immaterial to the nature of the URL. That is just my impression of the underlying cause for this entire debacle without any of the philosophical details about the nature of the document etc., that always pop up. Cheers, Peter
Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage
Peter Ansell wrote: 2009/12/1 Hogan, Aidan aidan.ho...@deri.org: Hi Kingsley, For the sake of others. How do you describe and information resource via an RDF graph that is supposed to play well with Linked Data principles? If I understand the intent of your question, you are asking how an information resource should be identified -- i.e., what's a suitable URI? To clarify first: what's wrong with -- e.g. -- simply [1]? For me, this fits well with [2]. How does it not play well with Linked Data principles? Referring back to earlier: using [1] as the information-resource URI to represent the document returned is perfectly okay according to linked data principles: 1. Use URIs as names for things [yep] 2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names. [yep] 3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the standards (RDF, SPARQL) [yep] 4. Include links to other URIs so that they can discover more things. [not directly applicable] Cheers, Aidan [1] http://johnbreslin.com/blog/index.php?sioc_type=site [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources My impression of the entire debacle is that it is designed to make sure that every document has at least two identifiers so that reasoning systems do not have to distinguish between details about the delivery of the document, and details contained in the document. Some rdf harvesting engines want to be able to say URL retrievedWithhttpStatusCode 200, for example, and the flow on effect is that you now apparently can't use the documents URL for any other purpose because the extra httpStatusCode triple may get added into the RDF store without a different graph URI. If the statements are merged in a single graph, there is no way to separate it after that point because reasoning engines, in this case description logics, weren't designed with this multiplicity in mind. Interestingly, everyone is okay with adding URL retrievedWithhttpStatusCode 303, because that particular magic value is judged to be immaterial to the nature of the URL. That is just my impression of the underlying cause for this entire debacle without any of the philosophical details about the nature of the document etc., that always pop up. Peter, My real grip comes down to the fact that there seems to be an unwritten rule re. Documents i.e., they aren't material data objects (entities, data items, resources) re. RDF. Proof of this rule is demonstrated by the plethora of RDF files that don't assert any relationship between the RDF file (Data Container) and its structured content (Data Items). In addition, re. the HTTP system that drives the Web, when you issue an HTTP GET against a resource (i.e. a file; I don't buy the Information Resource moniker one bit), a server issues a 200 OK to indicate its ability to serve a User Agent the resource it requested. Naturally, this isn't how a Data Identifier works, since Identifiers are independent of: location, values, structure (this are very old Identity principles from way before the Web), you have a 303 if the Identifier looks like a normal resource URL or you leverage the Fragment Identifier component of the URL by taking the remainder of the URL as the address of the document containing the description of the HTTP URIs referent. Thus, as I've stated before (elsewhere), in my world view, all data objects are equal i.e., if something is worth describing (e.g. a Document or Data Container or File), it deserves an Identifier, and in the context of HTTP based data networks -what Linked Data is about - it means: a Generic HTTP scheme URI. I assume you've noticed the dearth of RDF examples that include descriptions of RDF files that are distinct, but connected, to the file contents. Cheers, Peter -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage
I assume you've noticed the dearth of RDF examples that include descriptions of RDF files that are distinct, but connected, to the file contents. People have been doing that for years using foaf:primaryTopic. See example at http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_PersonalProfileDocument and substitute URIs for the nodeIDs Ian
Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage
Ian Davis wrote: I assume you've noticed the dearth of RDF examples that include descriptions of RDF files that are distinct, but connected, to the file contents. People have been doing that for years using foaf:primaryTopic. See example at http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_PersonalProfileDocument and substitute URIs for the nodeIDs Ian Ian, Dearth: noun [in sing. ] a scarcity or lack of something : there is a dearth of evidence. See note at lack . I never said: non existent. A majority of RDF files don't express the aforementioned relationship. If you lookup Linked Data from spaces associated with myself of OpenLink you will see use the aforementioned property re. missing relation. Also, you may also find out that few people added the missing triple to their RDF files after nudges from me. I hope I've made things clearer? -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: If you lookup Linked Data from spaces associated with myself of OpenLink you will see use the aforementioned property re. missing relation. Also, you may also find out that few people added the missing triple to their RDF files after nudges from me. I hope I've made things clearer? I've read this thread and I don't understand the fuss. Some people aren't linking the document to the data it contains so we should encourage them to. Don't know why that is characterised as a debacle. Ian
Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage
2009/12/1 Ian Davis li...@iandavis.com: On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: If you lookup Linked Data from spaces associated with myself of OpenLink you will see use the aforementioned property re. missing relation. Also, you may also find out that few people added the missing triple to their RDF files after nudges from me. I hope I've made things clearer? I've read this thread and I don't understand the fuss. Some people aren't linking the document to the data it contains so we should encourage them to. Don't know why that is characterised as a debacle. The necessary declaration of document as distinct, and yet necessary for the definition of data, and the necessity of different URI's for these two concepts, are fundamental sticking points for many people. If the HTTP web no longer existed (or the internet connection was temporarily down), the discussion about document versus data would be mute. Simple RDF Triple database queries, that do not rely on HTTP communication, have no necessary need to refer to the Document/Artifact. Only data would exist in the RDF triples (unless you deliberately blur the division using the notion of foaf:Document via foaf:primaryTopic for instance). Hence the debacle with saying that Document is a necessary element to understand and use RDF data linked together using resolvable HTTP URI's when to many it is just an artifact that doesn't influence, and shouldn't need to semantically interfere with, the data/information content that is actually being referenced. In the long term, I see it as introducing a permanent link from a semantic RDF (or other similar format) universe to the current document segregated web that wouldn't be there if everyone shared their RDF information through some other system, and for example only used the URI verbatim to do queries on some global hashtable/index somewhere where there was no concept of document at the native RDF level. The definition of Linked Data doesn't specifically say that HTTP URI's have to be resolved using HTTP GET requests over TCP port 80 using DNS for an intermediate host name lookup as necessary, so why should it require the notion of documents to be necessary containers for data pretty much just because that is how HTTP GET semantics work. I characterise it as a debacle because it has been a recurring discussion for many years and shows that the semantic communicty hasn't quite cleaned up its architecture/philosophy enough for it to be clear to people who are trying to understand it and utilise it without delving into philosophical debates. Cheers, Peter
Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Peter Ansell ansell.pe...@gmail.com wrote: The necessary declaration of document as distinct, and yet necessary for the definition of data, and the necessity of different URI's for these two concepts, are fundamental sticking points for many people. Who is getting stuck on this point? Documents have URIs, as do the things documents might contain data about. If the HTTP web no longer existed (or the internet connection was temporarily down), the discussion about document versus data would be mute. Simple RDF Triple database queries, that do not rely on HTTP communication, have no necessary need to refer to the Document/Artifact. Only data would exist in the RDF triples (unless you deliberately blur the division using the notion of foaf:Document via foaf:primaryTopic for instance). Hence the debacle with saying that Document is a necessary element to understand and use RDF data linked together using resolvable HTTP URI's when to many it is just an artifact that doesn't influence, and shouldn't need to semantically interfere with, the data/information content that is actually being referenced. I disagree. Documents aren't HTTP artefacts: they exist happily on disks, printouts and in books. You can identify the medium (the data container in Kingsley's words) separately from the things it is describing (the data items). In fact it is usually necessary to do, and intuitive for most people who can distinguish the publisher of a book from the protaganist it describes. In the long term, I see it as introducing a permanent link from a semantic RDF (or other similar format) universe to the current document segregated web that wouldn't be there if everyone shared their RDF information through some other system, and for example only used the URI verbatim to do queries on some global hashtable/index somewhere where there was no concept of document at the native RDF level. The definition of Linked Data doesn't specifically say that HTTP URI's have to be resolved using HTTP GET requests over TCP port 80 using DNS for an intermediate host name lookup as necessary, so why should it require the notion of documents to be necessary containers for data pretty much just because that is how HTTP GET semantics work. I characterise it as a debacle because it has been a recurring discussion for many years and shows that the semantic communicty hasn't quite cleaned up its architecture/philosophy enough for it to be clear to people who are trying to understand it and utilise it without delving into philosophical debates. It seems pretty clear to me and many others in my experience, certainly not a debacle. Cheers, Peter Ian
