Re: Request for Feedback, Suggestions on TaxonConcept Species Concepts
I have made the changes they are visible in this RDF. http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp.rdf http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp.rdfI have also updated the following: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/sitemap.xml.gz (Removed some problematic Fungi, now about 66,000 species) http://lod.taxonconcept.org/taxonconcept_subset.rdf.gz Ontology: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl Ontology Doc: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/doc/index.html The Biol predicates are set as *equivalentproperty*. Biol Taxonomies are of type Taxonomy, so I created a new Tag http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Taxonomy txn:SpeciesTaxonomyTag rdf:about= http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Taxonomy; skos:prefLabelA Tag-like resource that is used to label taxonomies of the species concept Danaus plexippus se:mCcSp/skos:prefLabel txn:speciesTaxonomyTagHasSpeciesConcept rdf:resource= http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species/ txn:kingdomAnimalia/txn:kingdom txn:phylumArthropoda/txn:phylum txn:classInsecta/txn:class txn:orderLepidoptera/txn:order txn:familyNymphalidae/txn:family txn:genusDanaus/txn:genus txn:specificEpithetplexippus/txn:specificEpithet txn:scientificNameAuthorship(Linnaeus, 1758)/txn:scientificNameAuthorship txn:commonNameMonarch Butterfly/txn:commonName /txn:SpeciesTaxonomyTag I have also added these links to EUNIS, although they maybe somewhat problematic since these are the same URI's as the foaf:page. eunis:SpeciesSynonym rdf:about=http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species/90910 skos:closeMatch rdf:resource= http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species/ rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource=http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species/90910/ /eunis:SpeciesSynonym - Pete On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Peter DeVries pete.devr...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Toby, Here is where we seem to have some differences. txn:species plexippus ; txn:authority Linnaeus, 1758 ; txn:epithet plexippus ; txn:author_year (Linnaeus, 1758) ; I looked at the latest DarwinCore http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Taxon Since it would be helpful to allow people to rewrite these easily, or the txn: set equivalent property to. I think it might be best to adopt their set. * * *genus: Carex* * * *specificEpithet: viridula* * * *infraspecificEpithet: elatior* * * *taxonRank: varietas* * * *scientificNameAuthorship: (Schltdl.) Crins* * * *Ideally the scientific name would include the authorship and have three parts to comply with the nomenclatural code (ICBN in this case):* * * *Carex viridula var. elatior (Schltdl.) Crins* I am thinking I should do the following: txn:genus txn:specificEpithet txn:infraspecificEpithet - am not using these now txn:scientificNameAuthorship txn:taxonRank DarwinCore does not have a dwc:commonName. I can then set your versions for the same thing as equivalent properties in my ontology. I will also cite your ontology in my ontology doc. Does everyone think that this will work? Or is there some side effect I am not thinking off? Should I also set the DarwinCore attributes as equivalent properties. If you look at this page: http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Taxon You will see what I am talking about in regards to Darwin core literals vs. URI's The taxonRanks should probably be represented as URI's rather than literals. Also note that it is likely that different groups, Wikipedia, ITIS, NCBI etc. place the taxa in slightly different groups. So we are likely to see things like this in the cloud, note the duplicate genus and epithet names for the same vocab. http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/x6gDo#Species txn:genus = Lithobates txn:genus = Rana txn:epithet = catesbeianus txn:epithet = catesbeiana Also Note that it is difficult to tell which genus name goes with which epithet? foaf:page rdf:resource=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullfrog/ foaf:page rdf:resource= http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rana_catesbeiana/ foaf:page rdf:resource=http://www.eol.org/pages/330963/ foaf:page rdf:resource=http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species/10586/ foaf:page rdf:resource= http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSNamp;search_value=775084http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSNsearch_value=775084 / txn:hasGBIF13801188/txn:hasGBIF txn:hasITIS775084/txn:hasITIS txn:hasEOL330963/txn:hasEOL txn:hasNCBI8400/txn:hasNCBI This is one reason that I have started to think about linking out to several alternative phylogenies. Right now I only have some to class. txn:inDBpediaClade rdf:resource= http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Amphibian/ txn:inCoLClass rdf:resource= http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/phylo/CoL/CoL_2010_base.owl#Class_Amphibia / On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.comwrote: Toby Inkster wrote: On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:06:08
RE: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
-Original Message- From: semantic-web-requ...@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 11:51 PM To: Michael Schneider Cc: Linked Data community; semantic-...@w3.org Subject: Re: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on! Michael Schneider wrote: Hi! Just a few notes concerning your ideas and OWL DL (I don't know whether this is important for you or not, but some people might find it relevant): Thanks Michael, Very useful and indeed relevant (thanks!). To summarise, everything mentioned so far by me is fine in OWL Full and RDF(s), but not in OWL DL. I should have mentioned that you could make ex:value an owl:AnnotationProperty, which would allow you to have all of URIs, literals and bnodes in object position. But this, of course, has other drawbacks in OWL DL, apart from not looking very justified conceptually (ex:value is probably not meant as a means to add comments to a resource?). If you make it an annotation property, most OWL constructs cannot be used with the property anymore. For example, it may make sense to state that ex:value is a functional property, or to put a has-value restriction on it in some scenarios. That's all not possible then anymore. In OWL 2 DL, you could at least put a range axiom on it, but it would not have any semantic consequences, i.e. an OWL DL reasoner would completely ignore both the property and the axiom on it. This may lead to surprises. So, my general view is that making a property, which is not naturally sort of a commenting property (such as rdfs:comment), an annotation property is only acceptable, if you exactly know what you are doing and if you have full control over the property's use. If you expect to publish the property to be used by others, and if there are possible scenarios where one might like to use the property in an OWL construct (e.g. an axiom) or even do reasoning with it, then don't make it an annotation property. Thus is it safe to say that this would be a problem in OWL DL as well?: :x owl:sameAs 'a literal'^^xsd:string . No, owl:sameAs cannot be used with literals in OWL DL. It can only be used with URIs (named individuals). What you are doing here is, again, genuine OWL Full, because OWL Full treats data values as individuals. And I guess the take-away is, that if one was to go for something as described in the original post, it would not be OWL DL compliant. Consider SKOS-XL [1]: ex:foo skosxl:prefLabel [ rdf:type skosxl:Label ; skosxl:literalForm foo ] Here, skosxl:prefLabel is specified as an object property [sic!] and skosxl:literalForm is a data property (while the better known skos:label property is an annotation property). This works in DL, but only if you use those properties as a team. In your original example, you have used foaf:name, which was a data property, and this does not work. Also, you cannot use skosxl:literalForm with a URI as an object, what you did with ex:value in your earlier post. So, you can do it in DL, but you don't have very much usage freedom. Thus, check your use cases! ps: If I get to the stage of trying to express any of this in an OWL ontology (FULL I guess!), would it be okay to send through to cast your eye over. Feel free. For OWL Full, actually, it's as simple as this: syntactically, if it is in RDF (and it always is), then you are in OWL Full (a no-brainer), simply since the syntax of OWL Full is defined to be (unrestricted) RDF. And if you want to do OWL Full-style reasoning, then the OWL 2 RL/RDF Rules language [2] and corresponding reasoners (e.g. [3]) are often sufficient (though sometimes not, depends on your usecases). Many Regards, Nathan Best, Michael [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#xl [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-profiles-20091027/#Reasoning_in_OWL_2_RL_ and_RDF_Graphs_using_Rules [3] http://www.ivan-herman.net/Misc/2008/owlrl/ -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: michael.schnei...@fzi.de WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider === FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus ===
Re: Organization ontology
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. Congratulations on the publication of this ontology! I've added it to Schemapedia here: http://schemapedia.com/schemas/org I noticed a small semantic typo in the example at the end of section 3. skos:preferredLabel should be skos:prefLabel Ian
RE: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
Hi Henry! Story Henry wrote: If you look at the rdf semantics document it spends a lot of time showing how one can turn literals into bnodes. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf- mt/ (I can't quite remember where now) This works for OWL (1/2) /Full/ as well. OWL Full uses the (unrestricted) RDF abstract syntax as its native syntax; hence, _:x owl:sameAs 'foo' is valid syntactically in OWL Full. And OWL (1/2) Full uses the OWL 1 RDF-Compatible Semantics [1a] or the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics [1b] as its semantics, which is strictly layered on top of the RDF Semantics; hence, _:x owl:sameAs 'foo' is semantically meaningful in OWL Full, meaning that there exists a resource in the universe of discourse that happens to be the string 'foo'. What I said was that it does not work in OWL /DL/. See Sec. 11.2 of the OWL 2 Structural Specification [2] for the syntactic Restrictions on the Usage of Anonymous Individuals in OWL 2 DL ontologies, and see Sec. 2.2 of the OWL 2 Direct Semantics [3] (the semantics of OWL 2 DL), which states that the object domain (individuals, represented by URIs and bnodes) and the data domain (data values, represented by literals) are disjoint. I wonder what the problem owl has with doing this. And also I wonder if it is easy to create some new owl version that could deal with that. No such need. This language exists and has always been around: it is OWL (1/2) Full. Although, I'm starting to get the bad feeling that many people seem to miss the point what the purpose of this language is. The whole idea behind OWL Full is having a fully RDF compatible variant of OWL, which provides semantic expressivity comparable (but not necessarily perfectly equal) to OWL DL. Technically (as you have read the RDF Semantics spec, the following should be familiar terms to you), OWL 2 Full (actually, its semantics, the RDF-Based Semantics) is a semantic extension of RDFS (or D-entailment, to be more precise), providing vocabulary entailment for all the URIs of the OWL (2) vocabulary. You may want to read Chap. 1 (Introduction) of [1b] for further explanation (and, again, you will find a lot of familiar sounding terms and concepts there). Michael [1a] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html [1b] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-rdf-based-semantics-20091027/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20091027/ -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: michael.schnei...@fzi.de WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider === FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus ===
Re: Organization ontology
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 09:34 +0100, Ian Davis wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. Congratulations on the publication of this ontology! I've added it to Schemapedia here: http://schemapedia.com/schemas/org Thanks Ian. I noticed a small semantic typo in the example at the end of section 3. skos:preferredLabel should be skos:prefLabel Fixed. Cheers, Dave
Final Call for Submissions: Linked Data Triplification Challenge 2010
(sorry for cross-posting) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Call for Submissions: Linked Data Triplification Challenge 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --- DEADLINE ONE WEEK AHEAD: June 14th, 2010 --- Patron: Tim Berners-Lee Sponsors: Wolters Kluwer Germany, The Semantic Universe The yearly organized Linked Data Triplification Challenge awards prizes to the most promising application demonstrations and approaches in three fields related to Linked Data. For the success of the Semantic Web it is from our point of view crucial to overcome the chicken-and-egg problem of missing semantic representations on the Web and the lack of their utilization within concrete applications, to solve real-world problems. The Triplification Challenge aims to expedite this process by raising awareness and showcasing best practices. 3,000 EUR in prize money will be awarded to the winners of the open track and the special Open Government Data track. The challenge is open to anyone interested in applying Semantic Web and Linked Data technologies. This might include students, developers, researchers, and people from industry. Individual or group submissions are both acceptable. Submission deadline is 14th June 2010. Submissions === 3,000 EUR in prize money will be given to the most promising applications, newly published datasets and methodological approaches built upon Linked Data. Participants can choose between an Open Track and a special Open Government Data Track. Open Track -- The Open Track is sponsored by Wolters Kluwer Germany and Semantic Universe. In the Open Track we envision submissions in three categories: * Novel data sets that are published as part of the Web of Data, according to Linked Data principles, and demonstrating potential benefit of use within applications; * Novel generic mechanisms, approaches, and technologies that convert certain types and formats of information into triples, interlink them to other data sets, and expose them as Linked Data; * Applications showcasing the benefits of Linked Data to end-users such as for information syndication, specialized search, browsing, or augmentation of content. Open Government Data Track -- Participants are to design and build a web application that makes use of open government datasets. Any dataset qualifies that is produced by any government in the world. These can relate i.e. to environmental data, cadastral and geographic data, traffic data, historical data, public speeches, laws, demographics, election data, campaigning, corporate spending on political messaging etc. The source need not be any particular national government nor any particular level of government (local, state, provincial, federal, etc). At least one source must adhere to the principles of Linked Open Data. Mashups of raw and linked data are allowed and welcome. Format == Submissions must be original and must not have been submitted for publication elsewhere. Articles should follow the ACM ICPS guidelines for formatting and must be submitted via the online submission system as PDF documents (other formats will not be accepted). For the camera-ready version, we will also need the source files (Latex, Word Perfect, Word). Submissions should not exceed 3 pages. The descriptions should be submitted electronically via the submission system by May 18th, 2010. Eligible descriptions submissions will be included in the proceedings of the I-Semantics conference. Nominations for the Triplification Challenge should be presented at the conference by their authors. Under certain circumstances (e.g. undergraduate student or open-source community contribution) the conference fee will be waived for a nominee on special request. Important Dates === * June 14th, 2010: Submission of descriptions * June 28th, 2010: Notification of nomination * July 12th, 2010: Camera-ready version * September 1st to 3rd, 2010: Main Conference Contact and Further Information === Triplification Challenge Website: http://triplify.org/Challenge/2010 I-Semantics Website: http://i-semantics.tugraz.at/triplification-challenge Contact: Bernhard Schandl bernhard.scha...@univie.ac.at
Re: Discogs Linked Data
Hi,
As already noted the discogs data is still live, but I failed to load
the void description hence the home page not resolving properly.
I'll aim to get that fixed ASAP.
As Kurt pointed out the code for the conversion is available if anyone
needs it. I was intending to try and hack up a fix for the encoding
issue as you've described below. Its not pretty but should do the job.
The cross-links that exist so far are based purely by generating links
based on the existing web page links in the discogs data. So if there
are problems there then these may also be issues with the data.
My overall goal here was to explore a full conversion of the dataset,
using the full music ontology and with as high a fidelity as possible.
However its a spare time project, hence the outstanding issue list.
I'm happy to collaborate with people on extending the code as
required.
I also hope to convince the discogs maintainers to adopt Linked Data also.
Cheers,
L.
On 4 June 2010 05:15, mats@gmail.com wrote:
this is a data set i really want too somebody know a way around
the unicode problem???
Maybe find stuff like these #195;#175; with a regexp and then replace
them with the correct unicode chars.
In Python something like this looped through each line of the files should
work I think:
import re
teststr = 'Tcha#195;#175;kovsky'
regex = re.compile(r'(?!(#\d{3};))(#\d{3};){2}(?!(#\d{3};))')
rObj = re.search(regex, teststr)
if rObj is not None:
hexValues = [hex(int(rObj.group()[2:5])), hex(int(rObj.group()[8:11]))]
newChar = ''.join([chr(int(c, 16)) for c in hexValues]).decode('utf8')
print re.sub(regex, newChar, teststr)
outputTchaïkovsky
I've posted a more complete version here http://pastebin.com/vuq72irC
Cheers,
Mats
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
shared innovation™
Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those
of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message
and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of
the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then
please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this
e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
--
Leigh Dodds
Programme Manager, Talis Platform
Talis
leigh.do...@talis.com
http://www.talis.com
Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data
Hi Dan, What we provide is a bit richer because we go through their API. For example, we provide number of views, related slideshows, and keywords, etc. Also, I'm hoping that we can do links out to other data sources. I think that would be the clear value add. What do you think is the most appropriate approach linking out from existing data sources is? Thanks, Paul Dan Brickley wrote: On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Paul Grothpgr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I've wrapped the Slideshare.net API to expose it as RDF. You can find a blog post about the service at [1] and the service itself at [2]. An interesting bit is how we deal with Slideshare's API limits by letting you use your own API key. It's still needs to be properly linked (i.e. point to other resources on the WoD) but we're working on it. [1] http://thinklinks.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/linking-slideshare-data/ [2] http://linkeddata.few.vu.nl/slideshare/ Cool :) How does it relate to the RDFa they're embedding? (There's definitely a role for value-adding, even for sites that embed per-page RDF already...) cheers, Dan Let me know what you think, Thanks, Paul -- Dr. Paul Groth (pgr...@few.vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Postdoc Knowledge Representation Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data
Hey Paul, Great work. Thanks! On Monday 07 June 2010 21:16:11 Paul Groth wrote: [...] What do you think is the most appropriate approach linking out from existing data sources is? The most valuable interlinking from my POV would be links between the Slideshare data and peoples' personal data (i.e. FOAF files). A good start would be for you to also mint URIs in your namespace for the sioc:Account (instead of using the Slideshare URL) because these URIs could be used by people in their FOAF file in order to link to your dataset. Adding such links to your datasets seems much more challenging, very valuable nonetheless. Greetings, Olaf
Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data
Paul Groth wrote: Hi All, I've wrapped the Slideshare.net API to expose it as RDF. You can find a blog post about the service at [1] and the service itself at [2]. An interesting bit is how we deal with Slideshare's API limits by letting you use your own API key. It's still needs to be properly linked (i.e. point to other resources on the WoD) but we're working on it. [1] http://thinklinks.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/linking-slideshare-data/ [2] http://linkeddata.few.vu.nl/slideshare/ Let me know what you think, Thanks, Paul -- Dr. Paul Groth (pgr...@few.vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Postdoc Knowledge Representation Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam Paul, seeAlso: 1. http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/id/entity/http/www.slideshare.net/kidehen/meet-charlie-what-is-enterprise-30 -- RDF based Linked Data View of one of my presentations via the Sponger Cartridge for Slideshare . -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data
On Monday 07 June 2010 22:00:04 Barry Norton wrote: Olaf, just the fellow :) I was thinking I'd like to see (as we were just discussing about Linked Open Services in Crete) a bit of: prv:retrievedBy [ a prv:DataAccess ; prv:accessedService [... foaf:homepage http://slideshare.net/ ] ; prv:performedAt 2010-06-07T20:59:42+00:00^^xsd:dateTime ; prv:performedBy http://linkeddata.few.vu.nl/slideshare/ ] Sure. Provenance-related metadata would also be a great addition (and I guess Paul understands the value of this pretty well ;-) Greetings, Olaf
ANNOUNCE: lod-announce list
Hi all, Now we are getting a steady growth in the number of Linked Data sites, products and services I thought it was time to create a low-volume announce list for Linked Data related announcements so people can keep up to date without needing to wade through the LOD discussion. You can join the list at http://groups.google.com/group/lod-announce Here is its summary: A low-traffic, moderated list for announcements about Linked Open Data and only for announcements. On topic messages include announcements of new Linked Data sites, data dumps, services, vocabularies, books, talks, products, tools, events, jobs and conferences with a Linked Data programme. You don't need to join the list to post to it, but all posts are moderated to ensure they stay on-topic. Please feel free to forward this message to other lists that you think might be relevant. Cheers, Ian PS Let me know if you are interested in being a moderator too.
Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data
Olaf, Barry: We like provenance... so I'll definitely try to put that in there. In terms of the linking to people's personal data, I'm really interested in that as well. I thought I did mint SIOC accounts in the my namespace... but I'll check tomorrow. I think linking to other datasets is where we'll be doing the research bit. Thanks for the recommendations! Paul Olaf Hartig wrote: On Monday 07 June 2010 22:00:04 Barry Norton wrote: Olaf, just the fellow :) I was thinking I'd like to see (as we were just discussing about Linked Open Services in Crete) a bit of: prv:retrievedBy [ a prv:DataAccess ; prv:accessedService [... foaf:homepagehttp://slideshare.net/ ] ; prv:performedAt 2010-06-07T20:59:42+00:00^^xsd:dateTime ; prv:performedByhttp://linkeddata.few.vu.nl/slideshare/ ] Sure. Provenance-related metadata would also be a great addition (and I guess Paul understands the value of this pretty well ;-) Greetings, Olaf
Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data
Cool. I'll add the seeAlso link in. Also I like the rdf:type bibo:slideshow that you use so will add that in as well. Thanks! Paul Kingsley Idehen wrote: Paul Groth wrote: Hi All, I've wrapped the Slideshare.net API to expose it as RDF. You can find a blog post about the service at [1] and the service itself at [2]. An interesting bit is how we deal with Slideshare's API limits by letting you use your own API key. It's still needs to be properly linked (i.e. point to other resources on the WoD) but we're working on it. [1] http://thinklinks.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/linking-slideshare-data/ [2] http://linkeddata.few.vu.nl/slideshare/ Let me know what you think, Thanks, Paul -- Dr. Paul Groth (pgr...@few.vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Postdoc Knowledge Representation Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam Paul, seeAlso: 1. http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/id/entity/http/www.slideshare.net/kidehen/meet-charlie-what-is-enterprise-30 -- RDF based Linked Data View of one of my presentations via the Sponger Cartridge for Slideshare .
Re: Organization ontology
On 06/08/2010 12:27 AM, William Waites wrote: On 10-06-03 16:04, Dave Reynolds wrote: It would be great if you could suggest a better phrasing of the description of a FormalOrganization that would better encompass the range of entities you think should go there? Or are you advocating that the distinction between a generic organization and a externally recognized semi-autonomous organization is not a useful one? Reading the rest of your mail, I think the latter. Do we really need FormalOrganisation at all? Can we not just have Organisation and then some extension vocabulary could have subclasses for different flavours of partnerships, corporations, unincorporated associations etc. as needed? Sorry for jumping in. I was thinking that a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called LegalEntity to be more precise. b) what happens when organizations change legal status? More on the latter - If you'd like to make having evolving graphs easier, you might as well make some legal-status a property and have anyone use URIs that work best for them. Which BTW makes adoption easier as well; Gov's might even pick it up and adapt to their local legal definitions of organization types or something, but any logic code made for plain old Organization will know how to deal with those. Cheers, Manos -- Manos Batsis, Chief Technologist ___ _/ /_ (_)_ __ / __ `/ __ \/ / ___/ ___// __ `/ ___/ / /_/ / /_/ / (__ |__ )/ /_/ / / \__,_/_.___/_//(_)__, /_/ // http://www.Abiss.gr 19, Kalvou Street, 14231, Nea Ionia, Athens, Greece Tel: +30 211-1027-900 Fax: +30 211-1027-999 http://gr.linkedin.com/in/manosbatsis attachment: manos.vcf
Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data
Hi Paul, Is it possible to add the /id/NN URI to the document that is returned for those URIs, as the links to related items all go to /id/N but the resolved RDF documents do not contain that URI. For example, http://linkeddata.few.vu.nl/slideshare/mhelmke/presentation-zen contains information about (should map the resolution URI to this URI in RDF) http://www.slideshare.net/mhelmke/presentation-zen which contains a link to http://linkeddata.few.vu.nl/slideshare/id/1478896 , which should be linked to (need this statement in RDF) http://www.slideshare.net/guestc555bbe/business-presentation-wireless-powerpoint-2003-version Cheers, Peter On 8 June 2010 04:18, Paul Groth pgr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I've wrapped the Slideshare.net API to expose it as RDF. You can find a blog post about the service at [1] and the service itself at [2]. An interesting bit is how we deal with Slideshare's API limits by letting you use your own API key. It's still needs to be properly linked (i.e. point to other resources on the WoD) but we're working on it. [1] http://thinklinks.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/linking-slideshare-data/ [2] http://linkeddata.few.vu.nl/slideshare/ Let me know what you think, Thanks, Paul -- Dr. Paul Groth (pgr...@few.vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Postdoc Knowledge Representation Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
Re: Organization ontology
I can see Manos' point. It seems that LegalEntity rather the Organization would work well under a sub-domain such as .LAW or .DOJ or .SEC, but under other sub-domains such as .NASA, the Organization element might be better served as ProjectName. All instances would help specify the Organization type, while keeping Organization as the general unstylized element is probably ideal, as inferred by William Waites. Michael A. Norton From: Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) ma...@abiss.gr a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called LegalEntity to be more precise.
Re: Organization ontology
Indeed. But isn't the case that for every single website, there is a single LegalEntity to attach it to, use cases otherwise paired downward on the spectrum--or attributed to--after that? Michael A. Norton From: Patrick Logan patrickdlo...@gmail.com To: Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.com Cc: public-egov...@w3.org; Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com; William Waites william.wai...@okfn.org; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; William Waites ww-keyword-okfn.193...@styx.org; Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) ma...@abiss.gr Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 4:50:03 PM Subject: Re: Organization ontology Large corporations often have multiple legal entities and many informal, somewhat overlapping business organizations. Just saying. I wrangled with that. There're several different use cases for these for internal vs external, customer/vendor, financial vs operations, etc. On Jun 7, 2010 3:19 PM, Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.com wrote: I can see Manos' point. It seems that LegalEntity rather the Organization would work well under a sub-domain such as .LAW or .DOJ or .SEC, but under other sub-domains such as .NASA, the Organization element might be better served as ProjectName. All instances would help specify the Organization type, while keeping Organization as the general unstylized element is probably ideal, as inferred by William Waites. Michael A. Norton From: Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) ma...@abiss.gr a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called LegalEntity to be more precise
RE: Organization ontology
In the law, there are two concepts (a) Person and (b) Entity. In simple terms: A person is a human. An entity is a non-human. Generally, these terms are used to distinguish who has the capacity to sue, be sued, or who lacks the capacity to sue or be sued. A person (human) can sue or be sued in an individual capacity, with certain exceptions for juveniles, those who are legally insane, or who otherwise are deemed or adjudicated under the law to lack legal capacity. An entity must exist as a legal person under the laws of a state. An entity's existence under the laws of a state occurs either through registration (usually with the secretary of state) or by operation of law (can happen with a partnership). Generally, anything else is not a entity. For example, you cannot sue a group of people on a beach as a entity - you would have to name each person individually. This is true, because the group of people on a beach typically have done nothing to form a legally recognized entity. From a legal perspective, calling something a Legal Entity is redundant; although from a non-legal perspective, it may provide clarity. In contrast a legal person is not redundant because most legal minds would understand this to mean an entity (i.e., a person with the capacity to sue and be sued that is not a human person). From a data modeling perspective, I find it straightforward to use the terms Person and Organization because (a) typically only lawyers understand Entity and (b) the data model for an organization tends to work for both (legal) entities and for organizations that might not fully meet the legal requirements for an entity. Taking the example below, a large corporation or government agency (both of which are [legal] entities) might be organized into non-legal divisions, subdivisions, departments, groups, etc, that are not (legal) entities but still might operate like, and need to be named as, an organization. Some companies have subsidiaries that are legal (entities). By adding OrganizationType to the Organization data model, you provide the ability to modify the type of organization and can then represent both (legal) entities and (legally unrecognized) organizations. Taxing authorities (e.g., the IRS) have different classifications for entities. An S Corporation, C Corporation, and a Non-Profit Corporation are all (legal) entities, even though their tax status differs. Hope this is helpful for what it is worth. Todd See also U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 17. From: public-egov-ig-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Logan Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 7:50 PM To: Mike Norton Cc: public-egov...@w3.org; Dave Reynolds; William Waites; Linked Data community; William Waites; Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) Subject: Re: Organization ontology Large corporations often have multiple legal entities and many informal, somewhat overlapping business organizations. Just saying. I wrangled with that. There're several different use cases for these for internal vs external, customer/vendor, financial vs operations, etc. On Jun 7, 2010 3:19 PM, Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.commailto:xsideofparad...@yahoo.com wrote: I can see Manos' point. It seems that LegalEntity rather the Organization would work well under a sub-domain such as .LAW or .DOJ or .SEC, but under other sub-domains such as .NASA, the Organization element might be better served as ProjectName. All instances would help specify the Organization type, while keeping Organization as the general unstylized element is probably ideal, as inferred by William Waites. Michael A. Norton From: Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) ma...@abiss.grmailto:ma...@abiss.gr a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called LegalEntity to be more precise
RE: Organization ontology
In case this is helpful, the following are the high-level templates I typically
use when modeling Person and Organization. These can/do change based on the
application. One of the goals of these structures is to keep the two objects
as similar as possible.
Organization
organizat...@organizaitontype
- Name (1)
- AlternateNames (0-many)
- ContactPerson (0-1)
- Addresses (0-many)
- Phones (0-many)
- Emails (0-many)
- Websites (0-many)
- Identifiers (0-many)
- Roles (0-many)
-- Name (1)
-- Identifier (1)
-- RoleAssociations (0-many)
Person
- Name (1)
- AlternateNames (0-many)
- ContactOrganization (0-1)
- Addresses (0-many)
- Phones (0-many)
- Emails (0-many)
- Websites (0-many)
- Identifiers (0-many)
- Descriptions (0-many)
- Roles (0-many)
-- Name (1)
-- Identifier (1)
-- RoleAssociations (0-many)
The content models for Name, AlternateName and Identifiers differ for Person
and Organization; Organization includes @OrganizationType, and ContactPerson
and ContactOrganization are switched, but otherwise the model is the same.
This is not intended to be a one size fits all model. Different applications
have different needs. This is just one way to do it that I have found works
well in a number of situations.
Again, hope this is helpful,
Todd
-Original Message-
From: public-egov-ig-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Emmanouil Batsis (Manos)
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 6:04 PM
To: William Waites
Cc: William Waites; Dave Reynolds; Linked Data community; public-egov...@w3.org
Subject: Re: Organization ontology
On 06/08/2010 12:27 AM, William Waites wrote:
On 10-06-03 16:04, Dave Reynolds wrote:
It would be great if you could suggest a better phrasing of the
description of a FormalOrganization that would better encompass the
range of entities you think should go there? Or are you advocating
that the distinction between a generic organization and a externally
recognized semi-autonomous organization is not a useful one?
Reading the rest of your mail, I think the latter. Do we really need
FormalOrganisation at all? Can we not just have Organisation and then
some extension vocabulary could have subclasses for different flavours
of partnerships, corporations, unincorporated associations etc. as
needed?
Sorry for jumping in. I was thinking that
a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called LegalEntity to
be more precise.
b) what happens when organizations change legal status?
More on the latter - If you'd like to make having evolving graphs easier, you
might as well make some legal-status a property and have anyone use URIs that
work best for them.
Which BTW makes adoption easier as well; Gov's might even pick it up and adapt
to their local legal definitions of organization types or something, but any
logic code made for plain old Organization will know how to deal with those.
Cheers,
Manos
--
Manos Batsis, Chief Technologist
___
_/ /_ (_)_ __
/ __ `/ __ \/ / ___/ ___// __ `/ ___/
/ /_/ / /_/ / (__ |__ )/ /_/ / /
\__,_/_.___/_//(_)__, /_/
//
http://www.Abiss.gr
19, Kalvou Street,
14231, Nea Ionia,
Athens, Greece
Tel: +30 211-1027-900
Fax: +30 211-1027-999
http://gr.linkedin.com/in/manosbatsis
RE: Organization ontology
Mike: I purposely am avoiding using OrganizationType . . . Note that: Tax Status = C Corp, S-Corp, Non-Profit Entity (Types) (Private) = Corporation, Limited Liability Company (LLC), Partnership, Limited Liability Partnership, Trust (there are others) Entity (Types) (Public) = State, County, Municipality, Agency, Court, Parrish (there are others) The above are U.S. terms, not international. I use Roles and RoleAssociations to show relationships among unique people and organizations. ABC, Inc. - Role = Parent Company - Identifer = ABC001 - RoleAssociation = XYZ001 XYZ, Inc. - Role = Subsidiary - Identifier = XYZ001 - RoleAssociation = ABC001 Jason Taylor - Role = CEO - Identifier = CEO001 - RoleAssociation = ABC001 - Role = Shareholder - Identifier = Shareholder001 - RoleAssociation = XYZ001 I use alternate names to refer to the same person or entity using a different name. ABC, Inc. dba Neighborhood Pool Cleaners Organization - Name = ABC, Inc. - AlternateName = Neighborhood Pool Cleaners - alternaten...@alternatenametype = Doing Business As Use sunscreen. ☺ Todd From: Mike Norton [mailto:xsideofparad...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:14 AM To: Todd Vincent Cc: Patrick Logan; public-egov...@w3.org; Dave Reynolds; William Waites; Linked Data community; William Waites; Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) Subject: Re: Organization ontology Thanks for this, Todd. Personally, I love the persons on a beach scenario, because it is provocative and, quite simply, persons on a beach! I was looking at Organization as an outsider of the legal profession , referring to LegalEntity with C-Corps, S-Corps, and such in mind. OrganizationType would be a great attribute to help further delineate the complex web of organizations that do comprise the space, and perhaps further describe the Organization's Merger status, Acquisition status, or other Exchange-relative markup. Michael A. Norton From: Todd Vincent todd.vinc...@xmllegal.org To: Patrick Logan patrickdlo...@gmail.com; Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.com Cc: public-egov...@w3.org public-egov...@w3.org; Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com; William Waites william.wai...@okfn.org; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; William Waites ww-keyword-okfn.193...@styx.org; Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) ma...@abiss.gr Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 8:27:11 PM Subject: RE: Organization ontology In the law, there are two concepts (a) Person and (b) Entity. In simple terms: A person is a human. An entity is a non-human. Generally, these terms are used to distinguish who has the capacity to sue, be sued, or who lacks the capacity to sue or be sued. A person (human) can sue or be sued in an individual capacity, with certain exceptions for juveniles, those who are legally insane, or who otherwise are deemed or adjudicated under the law to lack legal capacity. An entity must exist as a legal person under the laws of a state. An entity's existence under the laws of a state occurs either through registration (usually with the secretary of state) or by operation of law (can happen with a partnership). Generally, anything else is not a entity. For example, you cannot sue a group of people on a beach as a entity – you would have to name each person individually. This is true, because the group of people on a beach typically have done nothing to form a legally recognized entity. From a legal perspective, calling something a Legal Entity is redundant; although from a non-legal perspective, it may provide clarity. In contrast a legal person is not redundant because most legal minds would understand this to mean an entity (i.e., a person with the capacity to sue and be sued that is not a human person). From a data modeling perspective, I find it straightforward to use the terms Person and Organization because (a) typically only lawyers understand Entity and (b) the data model for an organization tends to work for both (legal) entities and for organizations that might not fully meet the legal requirements for an entity. Taking the example below, a large corporation or government agency (both of which are [legal] entities) might be organized into non-legal divisions, subdivisions, departments, groups, etc, that are not (legal) entities but still might operate like, and need to be named as, an organization. Some companies have subsidiaries that are legal (entities). By adding OrganizationType to the Organization data model, you provide the ability to modify the type of organization and can then represent both (legal) entities and (legally unrecognized) organizations. Taxing authorities (e.g., the IRS) have different classifications for entities. An S Corporation, C Corporation, and a Non-Profit Corporation are all (legal) entities, even though their tax status differs. Hope this is helpful for what it is worth. Todd See also U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 17.
