Re: Looking for use of skos mapping in the Linked Data Cloud

[Peter DeVries]

Hi Bernard,

I have skos mapping in both TaxonConcept and GeoSpecies.

See  http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp.rdf

And  http://lod.geospecies.org/ses/mCcSp.rdf

Also EUNIS has skos mapping. It is RDFa

See http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species/90910

These should be in the cloud as they were recently crawled by both Sindice
and OpenLink.

Since I have a seeAlso to the mapped EUNIS data the mapped resources should
be in there as well.

http://lod.taxonconcept.org/sitemap.xml.gz

Here is a subset of the entire dataset that includes at least three of the
EUNIS species that we have in common.

http://lod.taxonconcept.org/taxonconcept_subset.rdf

- Pete


On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Bernard Vatant 
 wrote:

> Hello all
>
> For a project in terminology alignment, we are looking for uses of various
> flavours of skos:mappingRelation in vocabularies published in the LOD cloud,
> and well, we've hard time finding out published data sets using those
> relations. What I know of so far is not really published following LOD good
> practices ...
> - Results of the OAEI 2009 Library Thesaurus Mapping Task mapping LSCH,
> RAMEAU ans SWD.
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~aisaac/oaei2009/results.html (needs registration)
> - Mappings overview at http://linkedlifedata.com/sources, but it's unclear
> if and where the mapping data are available (no link available).
>
> Anything obvious I miss?
>
> Bernard
>
>
>
> --
> Bernard Vatant
> Senior Consultant
> Vocabulary & Data Engineering
> Tel:   +33 (0) 971 488 459
> Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com
> 
> Mondeca
> 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
> Web:http://www.mondeca.com
> Blog:http://mondeca.wordpress.com
> 
>


On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Bernard Vatant
wrote:

> Hello all
>
> For a project in terminology alignment, we are looking for uses of various
> flavours of skos:mappingRelation in vocabularies published in the LOD cloud,
> and well, we've hard time finding out published data sets using those
> relations. What I know of so far is not really published following LOD good
> practices ...
> - Results of the OAEI 2009 Library Thesaurus Mapping Task mapping LSCH,
> RAMEAU ans SWD.
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~aisaac/oaei2009/results.html (needs registration)
> - Mappings overview at http://linkedlifedata.com/sources, but it's unclear
> if and where the mapping data are available (no link available).
>
> Anything obvious I miss?
>
> Bernard
>
>
>
> --
> Bernard Vatant
> Senior Consultant
> Vocabulary & Data Engineering
> Tel:   +33 (0) 971 488 459
> Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com
> 
> Mondeca
> 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
> Web:http://www.mondeca.com
> Blog:http://mondeca.wordpress.com
> 
>



-- 

Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base

Re: Describing Images (and similar), and Descriptor discovery.

[David Booth]

Yes, it's good to have distinct URIs for an image and an RDF description
of that image.  But bear in mind that doing so does not exclude you from
*also* having a single, generic URI that uses content negotiation to
serve either format as requested.  The Content-Location header is used
to indicate the URI of the specific content that was returned:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.14 

For example, you could have a generic URI:

 http://example.com/image (either image or RDF)

using conneg it would return either jpg, png or RDF, and the HTTP
response header would indicate the specific URI for the jpg or RDF
version that was return, such as one of:

 http://example.com/image,jpg (jpg image)
 http://example.com/image,png (png image)
 http://example.com/image,rdf (RDF)

David Booth

On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 15:16 +0100, Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:01:32 +0100
> Nathan  wrote:
> 
> > I'm just wondering what approaches people are taking to describing
> > non rdf/html resources, such as Images, PDFs and similar?
> 
> As Michael pointed out, if you consider the RDF document to be a
> "representation" (in HTTP terminology) of the image, then you can serve
> both the binary image and the RDF from the same URI using conneg.
> 
> However, usually an RDF description of an image would considered a
> separate resource from the image itself. (They're likely to have
> different dc:created dates, and possibly different dc:creators too.) In
> this case, they should have separate URIs. For example:
> 
>   http://example.com/image (the image)
>   http://example.com/describe?uri=http://example.com/image (RDF)
> 
> Or:
> 
>   http://example.com/image (the image)
>   http://example.com/image,about (RDF)
> 
> So, now that we're serving the image and the RDF as different
> resources, it becomes a question of how to discover the RDF data given
> the image's URI. The Web Linking Internet Draft provides a way forward.
> 
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10
> 
> HTTP responses to requests for the image itself would include the
> following HTTP header (line-wrapped for legibility):
> 
>   Link: ;
>   rel="describedby";
>   type="application/rdf+xml"
> 
> The Web Linking draft is due to become an RFC Real Soon Now, and
> hopefully once that happens, linked data clients will start adding
> transparent support for it.
> 


-- 
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: Describing Images (and similar), and Descriptor discovery.

[Toby Inkster]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:01:32 +0100
Nathan  wrote:

> I'm just wondering what approaches people are taking to describing
> non rdf/html resources, such as Images, PDFs and similar?

As Michael pointed out, if you consider the RDF document to be a
"representation" (in HTTP terminology) of the image, then you can serve
both the binary image and the RDF from the same URI using conneg.

However, usually an RDF description of an image would considered a
separate resource from the image itself. (They're likely to have
different dc:created dates, and possibly different dc:creators too.) In
this case, they should have separate URIs. For example:

http://example.com/image (the image)
http://example.com/describe?uri=http://example.com/image (RDF)

Or:

http://example.com/image (the image)
http://example.com/image,about (RDF)

So, now that we're serving the image and the RDF as different
resources, it becomes a question of how to discover the RDF data given
the image's URI. The Web Linking Internet Draft provides a way forward.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10

HTTP responses to requests for the image itself would include the
following HTTP header (line-wrapped for legibility):

Link: ;
rel="describedby";
type="application/rdf+xml"

The Web Linking draft is due to become an RFC Real Soon Now, and
hopefully once that happens, linked data clients will start adding
transparent support for it.

-- 
Toby A Inkster

Re: Describing Images (and similar), and Descriptor discovery.

[Michael Hausenblas]

Nathan,

>From the TAG, related, maybe helps you a bit [1].

Cheers,
  Michael

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Feb/.html

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Nathan 
> Organization: webr3
> Reply-To: 
> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:01:32 +0100
> To: Linked Data community , Semantic Web community
> 
> Subject: Describing Images (and similar), and Descriptor discovery.
> Resent-From: Linked Data community 
> Resent-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:02:35 +
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I'm just wondering what approaches people are taking to describing non
> rdf/html resources, such as Images, PDFs and similar?
> 
> Given that we have a jpeg with the URL http://example.org/image.jpg
> would we:
> 
> give it the Identifier  and serve an
> RDF description via conneg
> 
> give it the Identifer  and again serve an
> RDF description via conneg - a possible issue introduced here is if you
> have an alternative SVG version with it's own fragments(?) (SVGTINY12[1])
> 
> give it a completely different Identifier
>  and 'link' from the descriptor to the
> image with..? (dcterms:hasFormat, sioc:link, uri:uri, link:uri, other?)
> 
> and on the reverse, how about descriptor discovery for images/PDFs etc,
> expose via the Link header (tight coupling to HTTP), or?
> 
> As a side but related question, do we see the Web Of Data as running
> autonomous to the Web of Documents, as in it is taken that rdf / linked
> data clients will purely run over the web of linked data and reference
> non rdf resources via links with no backwards discovery needed, or is
> the link from web of documents back to web of data needed by any
> specific use cases? does conneg suffice? what if the image is
> ?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nathan
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222
> 

Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data

[Paul Groth]

Yeah to confirm. I was able to get RDFa from the pages using the RDFa 
bookmarklet http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/rdfa-bookmarklet/


Paul

Damian Steer wrote:

On 9 Jun 2010, at 01:32, Peter Ansell wrote:
   

The RDFa that they embed won't be recognised by a typical RDFa
processor. It is only written to the DOM using Javascript, so it will
never get picked up by HTML-only robots. Exposing the API directly as
RDF is much more valuable IMO.
 


Slideshare does include RDFa in their HTML, yahoo media and opengraph iirc. You 
need a tagsoup parser to get it reliably. I'm not aware of and DOM manipulation

Unless I've completely misunderstood you here?

Damian
   

Describing Images (and similar), and Descriptor discovery.

[Nathan]

Hi All,

I'm just wondering what approaches people are taking to describing non 
rdf/html resources, such as Images, PDFs and similar?


Given that we have a jpeg with the URL http://example.org/image.jpg 
would we:


give it the Identifier  and serve an 
RDF description via conneg


give it the Identifer  and again serve an 
RDF description via conneg - a possible issue introduced here is if you 
have an alternative SVG version with it's own fragments(?) (SVGTINY12[1])


give it a completely different Identifier 
 and 'link' from the descriptor to the 
image with..? (dcterms:hasFormat, sioc:link, uri:uri, link:uri, other?)


and on the reverse, how about descriptor discovery for images/PDFs etc, 
expose via the Link header (tight coupling to HTTP), or?


As a side but related question, do we see the Web Of Data as running 
autonomous to the Web of Documents, as in it is taken that rdf / linked 
data clients will purely run over the web of linked data and reference 
non rdf resources via links with no backwards discovery needed, or is 
the link from web of documents back to web of data needed by any 
specific use cases? does conneg suffice? what if the image is 
?


Best,

Nathan

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222

Re: Please stop massive crawling against http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/

[Jürgen Umbrich]

Hi all, 

> The volunteer who is hosting http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/, a huge set of 
> GoodRelations product model data, is experiencing a problematic amount of 
> traffic from unidentified crawlers located in Ireland (DERI?), the 
> Netherlands (VUA?), and the USA.
> 


Another crawler used from DERI is the LDSpider[1] which we use to crawl data 
for the SWSE search engine and recently for the BTC 2010 dataset. 
Along these lines we admittedly have been doing an unusually large amount of 
crawling in the past month or two.

> The crawling has been so intense that he had to temporarily block all traffic 
> to this dataset.
> 
> In case you are operating any kind of Semantic Web crawlers that tried to 
> access this dataset, please
> 
> 1. check your crawler for bugs that create excessive traffic (e.g. by 
> redundant requests),

> 2. identify your crawler agent properly in the HTTP header, indicating a 
> contact person, and

User-agent of the LDSpider:
  * ldspider (http://code.google.com/p/ldspider/wiki/Robots)

> 3. implement some bandwidth throttling technique that limits the bandwidth 
> consumption on a single host to a moderate amount.


The LDSpider uses a delay policy similar to the one proposed in the IRLBot 
system. 
We have the following delay times per PLD (in the case of 
http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id the PLD is kaufkauf.net)
 * 500 ms for lookups which return content (200 resp code)
 * 250 ms for lookups which return no content (e.g. 30X, 40X, 50X).

There are also solutions for server side bandwidth throttling (e.g.  see [2]).

Please see also the reply of Andreas Harth at the semantic-web mailing list [3].

Best
   Juergen

[1] http://code.google.com/p/ldspider/
[2] http://code.google.com/p/ldspider/wiki/ServerConfig
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jun/0048.html

Looking for use of skos mapping in the Linked Data Cloud

[Bernard Vatant]

Hello all

For a project in terminology alignment, we are looking for uses of various
flavours of skos:mappingRelation in vocabularies published in the LOD cloud,
and well, we've hard time finding out published data sets using those
relations. What I know of so far is not really published following LOD good
practices ...
- Results of the OAEI 2009 Library Thesaurus Mapping Task mapping LSCH,
RAMEAU ans SWD.
http://www.few.vu.nl/~aisaac/oaei2009/results.html (needs registration)
- Mappings overview at http://linkedlifedata.com/sources, but it's unclear
if and where the mapping data are available (no link available).

Anything obvious I miss?

Bernard



-- 
Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Engineering
Tel:   +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com

Mondeca
3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:http://www.mondeca.com
Blog:http://mondeca.wordpress.com

Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data

[Damian Steer]

On 9 Jun 2010, at 01:32, Peter Ansell wrote:
> 
> The RDFa that they embed won't be recognised by a typical RDFa
> processor. It is only written to the DOM using Javascript, so it will
> never get picked up by HTML-only robots. Exposing the API directly as
> RDF is much more valuable IMO.

Slideshare does include RDFa in their HTML, yahoo media and opengraph iirc. You 
need a tagsoup parser to get it reliably. I'm not aware of and DOM manipulation

Unless I've completely misunderstood you here?

Damian