Re: What is a URL? And What is a URI

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 6:47 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

Kingsley,

Last one for today!

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 16:05 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

On 11/12/10 1:31 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:




Not to be offensive but are you familiar with "begging the question?"

You are assuming that "...we can solve ambiguity in the context of
Linked Data oriented applications."*

A Linked Data application is capable of perceiving an E-A-V graph
representation of data. That's context it can establish from content.


OK, same claim, different verse. ;-)

Now you are claim that what is contained in an E-A-V graph is sufficient
to eliminate ambiguity.

Another assumption for which you offer no evidence.
No evidence if you don't use Linked Data or haven't developed a Linked 
Data aware application.


Which profile are you re. the above, if any?


Being mindful that graphs are going to vary from source to source, how
can you now claim that any E-A-V graph is going to be sufficient to
eliminate ambiguity?
I am saying the FOL based statements in an EAV graph provide a enough 
logical foundation for a Linked Data aware application to figure out a 
lot of stuff, from the data.


At this point let's not speak in generalities. Make a case, and I show 
you a SPARQL pattern with an answer for instance .


I want go on a wild goose chase with you though. You have to invest in 
some Linked Data know how, if its new to you.

Repetition of the same claims doesn't advance the conversation.


Of course it doesn't. So let's play with some actual Linked Data!

Hope you have started a great weekend by this point!


Ditto.

Kingsley

Patrick





--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: What is a URL? And What is a URI

[Patrick Durusau]

Kingsley,

Last one for today!

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 16:05 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 11/12/10 1:31 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> > 



> > Not to be offensive but are you familiar with "begging the question?"
> >
> > You are assuming that "...we can solve ambiguity in the context of
> > Linked Data oriented applications."*
> 
> A Linked Data application is capable of perceiving an E-A-V graph 
> representation of data. That's context it can establish from content.
> 

OK, same claim, different verse. ;-)

Now you are claim that what is contained in an E-A-V graph is sufficient
to eliminate ambiguity. 

Another assumption for which you offer no evidence. 

Being mindful that graphs are going to vary from source to source, how
can you now claim that any E-A-V graph is going to be sufficient to
eliminate ambiguity?  

Repetition of the same claims doesn't advance the conversation. 

Hope you have started a great weekend by this point!

Patrick

Re: Google Refine 2.0

[KangHao Lu (Kenny)]

(Sorry I haven't played with Google Refine 2.0, but I would like to  
make some comments)




I'm pretty sure we're on the same page regarding the big vision:  
make data more fun, more useful, and easier to deal with. My focus  
is on a smaller and more immediate problem: how to let people handle  
messy data (without having to resort to programming, or a $500K  
enterprise level data analysis package).


I appreciate every work David does, although some of them I haven't  
had a chance to play with. Recently when I introduce Linked Data, I  
start with some demos of instances of Exhibit. I call it a Raw Data  
application, talk about the trait that you can have different views of  
the same data. Then I go into data integration, and call out the need  
of cross-domain Raw Data. I try to avoid talking about triples and RDF.


I sometimes try to explain that Tabulator and Exhibit share a key  
point in terms of infrastructure - client side database, and explains  
that the extension version of Tabulator could have been even better  
cause every tab shares the same database so it can do cross-domain  
data integration. It doesn't work very well because Tabulator doesn't  
look as good as Exhibit.


I tried to initiate an effort to embed Exhibit into Tabulator, but  
just didn't spend enough time on it so it didn't happen. But I still  
think it is a good project to do.


Side questions:

1. Exhibit used to suffer from the problem that if the amount of data  
is too big it became very slow because Javascript wasn't very fast at  
the time. Will IndexedDB solve this problem? Have anyone tried that?


2. Does anyone know of any good UI for query-by-example, used by  
Tabulator (and hence its name)? I still think it's the most overlooked  
feature of Tabulator which is theoretically a powerful and general  
feature, but it suffered from poor usability.



Cheers,
Kenny

LIMES

[Axel Ngonga]

Dear all,

On behalf of AKSW Research Group [1] I'm pleased to announce the first 
public release of the *LIMES framework* (Link Discovery Framework for 
Metric Spaces) available for download at:


http://limes.sf.net

LIMES implements time-efficient and lossless approaches for large-scale 
link discovery based on the characteristics of metric spaces. It is 
typically more than 60 times faster that other state-of-the-art link 
discovery frameworks.


LIMES is available:
* as a standalone Java tool for carrying out link discovery on a local 
server (faster). In this case, LIMES must be configured via an XML file,
* via the easily configurable web interface of the LIMES Linking Service 
at http://limes.aksw.org (results can be downloaded as nt-files).


Best regards,

Axel Ngonga

[1] http://aksw.org

--
Axel Ngonga, Dr. rer. nat
Johannisgasse 26
Zimmer 5-22
04103 Leipzig

Tel: +49 (0)341 9732341
Fax: +49 (0)341 9732239

Re: What is a URL? And What is a URI

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 1:31 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

Kingsley,

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 10:12 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

On 11/12/10 8:40 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

Kingsley,

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 07:58 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

On 11/12/10 5:59 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:






Patrick / Dave,

I am hoping as the responses come in we might pick up something. There
is certainly some confusion out there.

Note my comments yesterday re. URIs and Referents. I believe this
association to be 1:1, but others may not necessarily see it so.


Isn't it that "...others may not necessarily see it so." that lies at
the heart of semantic ambiguity?

Yes!

We are perpetuating ambiguity by conflating realms, ultimately. The Web
of URLs != Web of URIs. They are mutually inclusive (symbiotic).


Err, no, we are not "perpetuating ambiguity." Ambiguity isn't a choice,
it is an operating condition.


I believe that conflating realms increases ambiguity, maybe that's a 
little clearer?



Semantic ambiguity isn't going to go away. It is part and parcel of the
very act of communication.

This is why Context is King.

You can use Context to reduce ambiguity.

A good Comedian is a great Context flipper, for instance.

Ambiguity exists in the real-world too, we use Context to disambiguate
every second of our lives.


Eh? True enough but context in the "real-world" (do computers exist in a
make believe world?) is as unbounded as the subjects we talk about.


In our world there are computers, and from computers we have a sense of 
"cypberspace", the Web, the Internet, even InterWeb, for instance.



It is the journal I am reading that is part of the "context" I am using
for a particular article or is it the author or is it the subject matter
or is it the sentence just before the one I am reading?


You make context out of that otherwise it would all be incomprehensible. 
I can't fashion or construct your "context halo", I do sense its 
existence though :-)

All of those, at times some of those and at still other times, other
things will inform my context.



But you will use a specific context for data comprehension otherwise 
there would be no information (context driven perception of data).



It is true that is very limited circumstances with very few semantics,
such as TCP/IP, that is it possible to establish reliable communications
across multiple recipients. (Or it might be more correct to say
semantics of concern to such a small community that agreement is
possible. I will have to pull Stevens off the shelf to see.)

As the amount of semantics increases (or the size of the community), so
does the potential for and therefore the amount of semantic ambiguity.
(I am sure someone has published that as some ratio but I don't recall
the reference.)

So if a community believes in self-describing data, where the data is
the conveyor of context, why shouldn't it be able express such believes
in its own best practice options?


Great point! A community that subscribes to self-describing data, so 
dog-food self-describing data. Yes!!



Basically, we can solve ambiguity in
the context of Linked Data oriented applications. Of course, that
doesn't apply to applications that don't grok Linked Data or buy into
the semantic fidelity expressed by the content of a structured data
bearing (carrying) resource e.g. one based on EAV model + HTTP URI based
Names.


Not to be offensive but are you familiar with "begging the question?"

You are assuming that "...we can solve ambiguity in the context of
Linked Data oriented applications."*


A Linked Data application is capable of perceiving an E-A-V graph 
representation of data. That's context it can establish from content.



That is the *issue* at hand and cannot be assumed to be true, lest we
all run afoul of "begging the question" issues.

Hope you are having a great day!


Yes :-)

Patrick

*Your "Linked Data Application* may supply context but that *is not*
interchangeable with other "Linked Data Applications."

Nor does it reduce ambiguity.


Again EAV or SPO based data should be unambiguous to any Linked Data 
aware application.

Why?

For the same reason in both cases, there is no basis on which context
can be associated with identification. Remember, the URI is the
identifier. (full stop)

See comment above.


Fix it so that URI plus *specified* properties in RDF graph identify a
subject, then you have a chance to reduce (not eliminate) ambiguity. Not
as a matter of personal whimsy but as part of a standard that everyone
follows.


Again, you've just described the essence of the matter re. what is 
current tagged Ian's solution.


Links:

1. http://goo.gl/6ozSv -- URI Debugger view of the Document at: 
http://dbpedia.org/page/Paris (crystal clear to a user agents across 
various levels of semantic-fidelity and metadata sources e.g. HTTP 
response headers)





--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/

Re: survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label?

[Alan Ruttenberg]

Unfortunately, they should complain. OWL defines rdfs:label as an
annotation property, but foaf:name is a datatype property.

If foaf decided to make foaf:name an annotation property too, then it
would be possible to assert that, and even to retain the domain and
range assertions.

While they would not be seen by OWL reasoners, other tools and
interpretations using the rdf-based semantics would take them into
account.

Personally, I think this would be a fine change - no errors users
choose OWL-DL and additional functionality in other situations.

This wasn't possible in OWL 1, but OWL 2 offers:

AnnotationAxiom := AnnotationAssertion | SubAnnotationPropertyOf |
AnnotationPropertyDomain | AnnotationPropertyRange

http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Annotation_Subproperties

-Alan

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:25 PM, KangHao Lu (Kenny)
 wrote:
>
>>
>> This is one of several things that OWL DL oriented tools (eg.
>> http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator) don't seem to like, since it
>> mixes application schemas with the W3C builtins.
>>
>
> FWIW, the footer on the page of the tool mentioned
>
> [[
> © University of Manchester, 2003, © University of Karlsruhe, 2003
> ]]
>
> Do contemporary OWL DL tools complain about this triple?

They should not, as long as


>
>
>

Re: survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label?

[KangHao Lu (Kenny)]

This is one of several things that OWL DL oriented tools (eg.
http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator) don't seem to like, since it
mixes application schemas with the W3C builtins.



FWIW, the footer on the page of the tool mentioned

[[
© University of Manchester, 2003, © University of Karlsruhe, 2003
]]

Do contemporary OWL DL tools complain about this triple?

Re: survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label?

[KangHao Lu (Kenny)]

Dear Dan,

On 2010/11/12, at 20:08, Dan Brickley wrote:


Dear all,

The FOAF RDFS/OWL document currently includes the triple

foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label .

This is one of several things that OWL DL oriented tools (eg.
http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator) don't seem to like, since it
mixes application schemas with the W3C builtins.



[snip]


3. would you consider checking for ?x rdf:type foaf:LabelProperty or
other idioms instead (or rather, as well).


No.


4. would you object if the triple "foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf
rdfs:label " is removed from future version of the main FOAF RDFS/OWL
schema? (it could be linked elsewhere, mind)


Please Dan. I really don't like the idea of removing this triple. I am  
not an expert on ontology but we are talking about Linked Data here in  
mailing list. Linked Data means linking data across domains and  
ontologies are data. We have to encourage people to make links between  
different ontologies so that we can do more inference, not only OWL- 
based, in the future.


People can hard-code {foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label} into  
their system but I really don't think this is very elegant and  
subpropertying rdfs:label is the only clue that these label properties  
are related.


This is also pure fact-finding. If we add {rdfs:label a  
foaf:LabelProperty} to RDFS, will that break even more systems?


I see only two options:

1. Do nothing
2. Delete foaf:name and ask people to use rdfs:label instead


--- Theoretical Discussions I am not good at ---

If you deleted {foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label}, the means it  
was a lie. And it is very sad now that lots of people are relying on  
this lie.


What exactly is the reason why DL tools don't like this triple? Is it  
logically valid or it is some bug in the DL tools. I am never good at  
descriptive logic but I can try to learn it.



Cheers,

Kenny

Re: survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label?

[Toby Inkster]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:08:36 +0100
Dan Brickley  wrote:

> This is one of several things that OWL DL oriented tools (eg.
> http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator) don't seem to like, since it
> mixes application schemas with the W3C builtins.

DL is a tiresome bore. Add a few more non-DL constructs to give those
DL tools a good kicking!

-- 
Toby A Inkster

Re: What is a URL? And What is a URI

[Patrick Durusau]

Kingsley,

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 10:12 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 11/12/10 8:40 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> > Kingsley,
> >
> > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 07:58 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >> On 11/12/10 5:59 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Patrick / Dave,
> >>
> >> I am hoping as the responses come in we might pick up something. There
> >> is certainly some confusion out there.
> >>
> >> Note my comments yesterday re. URIs and Referents. I believe this
> >> association to be 1:1, but others may not necessarily see it so.
> >>
> > Isn't it that "...others may not necessarily see it so." that lies at
> > the heart of semantic ambiguity?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> We are perpetuating ambiguity by conflating realms, ultimately. The Web 
> of URLs != Web of URIs. They are mutually inclusive (symbiotic).
> 

Err, no, we are not "perpetuating ambiguity." Ambiguity isn't a choice,
it is an operating condition. 

> > Semantic ambiguity isn't going to go away. It is part and parcel of the
> > very act of communication.
> 
> This is why Context is King.
> 
> You can use Context to reduce ambiguity.
> 
> A good Comedian is a great Context flipper, for instance.
> 
> Ambiguity exists in the real-world too, we use Context to disambiguate 
> every second of our lives.
> 

Eh? True enough but context in the "real-world" (do computers exist in a
make believe world?) is as unbounded as the subjects we talk about.

It is the journal I am reading that is part of the "context" I am using
for a particular article or is it the author or is it the subject matter
or is it the sentence just before the one I am reading? 

All of those, at times some of those and at still other times, other
things will inform my context. 

> > It is true that is very limited circumstances with very few semantics,
> > such as TCP/IP, that is it possible to establish reliable communications
> > across multiple recipients. (Or it might be more correct to say
> > semantics of concern to such a small community that agreement is
> > possible. I will have to pull Stevens off the shelf to see.)
> >
> > As the amount of semantics increases (or the size of the community), so
> > does the potential for and therefore the amount of semantic ambiguity.
> > (I am sure someone has published that as some ratio but I don't recall
> > the reference.)
> 
> So if a community believes in self-describing data, where the data is 
> the conveyor of context, why shouldn't it be able express such believes 
> in its own best practice options? Basically, we can solve ambiguity in 
> the context of Linked Data oriented applications. Of course, that 
> doesn't apply to applications that don't grok Linked Data or buy into 
> the semantic fidelity expressed by the content of a structured data 
> bearing (carrying) resource e.g. one based on EAV model + HTTP URI based 
> Names.
> 

Not to be offensive but are you familiar with "begging the question?" 

You are assuming that "...we can solve ambiguity in the context of
Linked Data oriented applications."*

That is the *issue* at hand and cannot be assumed to be true, lest we
all run afoul of "begging the question" issues.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

*Your "Linked Data Application* may supply context but that *is not*
interchangeable with other "Linked Data Applications." 

Nor does it reduce ambiguity.

Why?

For the same reason in both cases, there is no basis on which context
can be associated with identification. Remember, the URI is the
identifier. (full stop)

Fix it so that URI plus *specified* properties in RDF graph identify a
subject, then you have a chance to reduce (not eliminate) ambiguity. Not
as a matter of personal whimsy but as part of a standard that everyone
follows. 

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patr...@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
Newcomb Number: 1

One Week Countdown to submit for WIMS'11 Conference

[Rajendra Akerkar]

Only one week remain! Please submit a paper/proposal/poster to the WIMS'11
conference by November 20. It is being held in Sogndal (Norway), in May
2011.

Scientific 
American
 article by Tim Berners-Lee, Ora Lassila and James Hendler was published in
May 2001. The WIMS'11 conference is an appropriate event to reflect on the
10 years - successes and misses >> 

*International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics
(WIMS'11)*
25 - 27 May 2011
Sogndal, Norway

*About WIMS'11:*
The International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics
(WIMS'11) will be organised under the auspices of Western Norway Research
Institute.
This is the first in a new series of conferences concerned with intelligent
approaches to transform the World Wide Web into a global reasoning and
semantics-driven computing machine. Next conferences in this series, WIMS'12
and WIMS'13, will take place in Craiova (Romania) and Madrid (Spain)
respectively.
The conference will provide an excellent international forum for sharing
knowledge and results in theory, methodology and applications of Web
intelligence, Web mining and Web semantics. The program will feature several
keynote and invited talks, from academia and the industry.


The *purpose of the WIMS'11* is:
- To provide a forum for established researchers and practitioners to
present past and current research contributing to the state of the art of
Web technology research and applications.
- To give doctoral students an opportunity to present their research to a
friendly and knowledgeable audience and receive valuable feedback.
- To provide an informal social event where Web technology researchers and
practitioners can meet.

*Conference Venue:*
The conference will be hosted by Vestlandsforsking (Western Norway Research
Institute), Sogndal.
This region, considered to be one of the most beautiful in Norway, has been
a destination for tourists, discoverers, and artists from around the world
for more than 150 years. Once again in 2009, the Norwegian fjords have been
rated as the World’s most celebrated and iconic travel destination by
National Geographic Traveller. The region’s scenery is powerful and varied,
ranging from flat fjord-side districts to steep mountainsides, beautiful
fjord arms, torrential waterfalls, blue glaciers and lush valleys.

*Call for Papers/Workshops/Tutorials/Posters:*
Authors are invited to submit full papers, tutorial and workshop proposals,
posters on all related areas. Papers exploring new directions or areas will
receive a thorough and encouraging review. Areas of interest include, but
not limited to:

*Topics & Scope:* Areas of interest include, but not limited to:
Semantics-driven information retrieval
Semantic agent systems
Semantic data search
Interaction paradigms for semantic search
Evaluation of semantic search
User interfaces
Web mining
Ubiquitous computing
Semantic deep Web and intelligent e-Technology
Representation techniques for Web-based knowledge
Quality of Life Technology for Web Document Access
Rule markup languages and systems
Semantic 3D media and content
Scalability vs. expressivity of reasoning on the Web

The detailed call for papers, tutorial/demo proposals, and posters can be
found at: http://wims.vestforsk.no/cfp.html

*Award*:
The best paper from all submissions will be determined by the PC and a Best
Paper Award will be presented at the conference.

*How to submit:*
The maximum length of

- research papers is at most 12 pages in ACM format
- tutorial/demonstration papers is 3 to 12 pages in ACM format
- poster is at most 2 pages in ACM format

Please note that the submission format is MS Word or PDF. The papers must be
written in English and formatted according to the ACM guidelines. Author
instructions and style files can be downloaded at
http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates

Authors of accepted papers are expected to attend the conference and present
their work.

Tutorial/demonstration proposals, poster papers and full research paper
submissions must be made electronically in MS Word or PDF format through the
EasyChair submission system at
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=wims11

*Publication*:
Accepted papers/tutorials/posters will be published by ACM and disseminated
through the ACM Digital Library.
Selected extended papers will be invited to appear in a special issues of
reputed journals in the field and also in a book published by Elsevier.

*Confirmed Invited Speakers *[http://wims.vestforsk.no/pro.html]:
Jim Hendler ( Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA)
Marko Grobelnik (J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana , Slovenia)
Peter Mika (Yahoo!, Barcelona, Spain)
Sören Auer (University of Leipzig, Germany)

*Advisory Committee*:
Amit Sheth, Ohio Center of Excellence on Knowledge-enabled Computing, Ohio
Frank van Harmelen, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, NL
Grigoris Antoniou, FORTH-Inst

Full-time PhD studentship in Semantic Web and Linked Data

[Christopher Brewster]

[Apologies for cross-posting]

Full-time PhD studentship in Semantic Web and Linked Data 
Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, in collaboration with 
Talis, UK

Three-year CASE award PhD Studentship.

The PhD studentship will provide a tax-free stipend of £17,290 per annum and 
covers all fees. It is available to suitably qualified UK residents (minimum 3 
years non-education related). Start Date: January 2011 (or by agreement).

The immense growth of publicly available data and the growing availability of 
this in semantically enriched formats has provided an unexpected opportunity to 
model the environmental impact of public and private actions with substantial 
implications for business, society, science and politics. From a technical 
perspective the challenge is how to combine, integrate and make sense of vast 
quantities of data so as to provide usable tools for end users, tools which can 
enable intelligent decisions to be made. 

The particular use case we will focus on in this project is energy usage and 
environmental impact of the food supply chain. The PhD project will focus on 
novel methods of data capture, analysis and mining, or visualisation, or 
combinations of the above. Semantic technologies will be used throughout to 
model and integrate the data with the expectation that the project will produce 
usable decision support tools. The agriculture and food domain is very data 
rich, and this is growing substantially due to novel sources of data such as 
satellite imagery, ground sensors and the increasing use of RFID. However, data 
integration and inter-operability is very poor due to multiple actors along the 
chain, and lack of standards. This project will focus on the role that semantic 
technologies and linked data can play is increasing the flow of knowledge from 
producer to end consumer, with a particular focus on energy usage and carbon 
footprint.

The student will be supervised by Dr. Christopher Brewster at Aston University, 
in close collaboration with Dr. Tom Heath at Talis Systems. The student will 
join the Operations and Information Management Group in Aston Business School 
which is one of Europe's leading Business Schools, with the majority of its 
research rated world-class or internationally excellent in the RAE2008 and 
accredited by AASCB, AMBA and EQUIS.

The PhD student will also spend extended periods of time working closely with 
Talis Systems, working on site and collaborating particularly with their 
research team. Talis is a well established and innovative software company 
headquartered in Solihull, near Birmingham, UK, and recognised as world leaders 
in the research, development and commercial exploitation of Linked Data and 
Semantic Web technologies. Expanding on its position as UK market leader in 
provision of academic and public library solutions, Talis has developed new 
businesses based around the Talis Platform, an open technology platform 
providing robust, foundational infrastructure for rapid development of a new 
generation of semantically rich applications and services.

Candidates should have a minimum 2.1 class undergraduate degree and a relevant 
Masters degree or equivalent experience. This may be in computer science, 
relevant engineering or business degrees. This is an interdisciplinary research 
topic but students should have strong computer programming skills (preferably 
in PHP, Python or Java) and a good knowledge of web technologies. Knowledge or 
experience of supply chains, life cycle analysis, environmental impact, or 
agricultural production methods are all a plus.

Please note that excellent programming skills are an absolute requirement for 
this position. Candidates will be tested on their programming skills.

This is an ESRC +3 CASE Award and there are academic and UK residential status 
eligibility criteria. (see www.esrc.ac.uk or contact us for clarification if 
necessary) The student will receive tuition fees and a stipend of £17,290 per 
annum (tax free) for the 3-year duration of the project. In addition, there 
will be an allowance to support research studies covering, for example, travel 
and subsistence for meetings and conference attendance, books and computing 
facilities. The funds are made available via the Erebus Project 
(http://Erebus-cbc.com). EREBUS is a West Midland-based initiative which was 
developed to create an enhanced capacity for undertaking business research. In 
an era of increasing competition, firms - and especially SMEs with limited 
market power and resources - need to continually transform their products, 
processes and ways of doing business. Rigorous and relevant business research 
and effective knowledge transfer can shape and enable such transformation 
leading to increased employment, productivity and profitability. As a 
partnership between Aston, Warwick and Birmingham Universities, EREBUS will 
create a new group of world-class social science researchers engaged in 
tra

Open Positions at Gnowsis.com

[Bernhard Schandl]

Hi,

Gnowsis.com, a Vienna-based Web startup, uses Semantic Web, AI, text analysis, 
data integration, and methods from cognitive science to help people refind 
their stuff. We work on an assistant software that gives users quick access to 
information based on what they are currently working on.

Currently we are looking for applicants for the following positions:

We have three open positions for software engineers:

Software Application Engineer - Natural Language Processing 


Software Application Engineer - Database Development


Software Application Engineer - User Interface Design


We are looking forward to receiving your CV and cover letter in English or 
German and will invite you for a personal interview. Send your application and 
all other questions to j...@gnowsis.com.

Please forward this announcement to interested colleagues and students.

Best regards
Bernhard Schandl

Re: Google Refine 2.0

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 11:54 AM, David Huynh wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Kingsley Idehen 
mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com>> wrote:


David:
I hope you understand that if a response doesn't start with:
"Congratulations David...", it doesn't mean I am criticizing your
work. You know me much better than that, I hope, as per my
comments above to Leigh.


Kingsley, of course, I was just ... picking on you :-)


Yes, that's what I assumed initially, but then I inferred the rash of 
"Congratulations David..." plus echos from Leigh (who might not have 
picked up on the ribbing) as folks thinking that my mail was in some way 
being critical, rather than continuing 3 year old (friendly) back and 
forth etc..



'cause every first response I get from you is along the line, "does it 
do RDF?" :-) No, I don't "do" RDF anymore, but I give away ideas, UI 
designs, code, and make my stuff extensible so that if you want to do 
RDF on it, you can.



I just asked a question, where the focus of the question was
scoped to an area of Google Refine that I hadn't looked into i.e.,
beyond its core ETL functionality. Again, an aspect, not the whole
thing.

FWIW - I watched the video after sending my initial mail, and it
didn't answer my question re. endgame. None of that diminishes the
splendor of Google Refine. Anyway, when we're done with Pivot, a
lot of the ramblings we had (offline) should become much clearer
i.e., the area that I've always been interested in i.e., making
Linked Data absolute fun for end-users, and in the process evolve
them into "Citizen Data Analysts".  We took this journey once
before via ODBC, but ODBC has platform specificity, data model,
and data representation limitations that don't exist in the Linked
Data realm. On the other hand though, ODBC ecosystem established
solid patterns (loose coupling of compliant applications and
drivers) that made it fun -- once you got past the aforementioned
shortcomings.


I'm pretty sure we're on the same page regarding the big vision: make 
data more fun, more useful, and easier to deal with. My focus is on a 
smaller and more immediate problem: how to let people handle messy 
data (without having to resort to programming, or a $500K enterprise 
level data analysis package). There are plenty of existing ETL 
software products, and even open source projects


Amen!

Our confluence is getting closer :-)



http://code.google.com/p/google-refine/wiki/RelatedSoftware

But Refine is intended to be for non-expert users and one-off use 
cases (as opposed to building a persistent data pipeline).


David




--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Status codes / IR vs. NIR -- 303 vs. 200

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 11:51 AM, Lars Heuer wrote:

Methinks RDFa is machine readable. The machine simply needs to
>  understand RDFa. Thus, if the user agent is committed to RDFa, it should
>  be able to interpret RDFa content; giving the content an option to
>  clarify matters re. whether an IRI is Name or Address.

Of course RDFa is machine readable. My example was HTML*without*
RDFa.


Lars,

I ended my last post with an append "#this" solution. In your case, you 
want to use a slash terminated HTTP URI base Name. Thus, this comes back 
to what a mentioned earlier re. the 200 OK and Content-Location: header 
solution.


You've opted to describe an entity from the Amazon data space, you've 
committed to a data model (lets say an EAV graph with HTTP URIs for 
Entity Names), you've committed to base logic i.e. FOL (so your EAV 
graph has SPO triples). Thus, you should be able to work with slash 
terminated HTTP Names unambiguously if you commit to the 
semantic-fidelity of the content delivered to you via HTTP. Basically, 
the data will clearly Identity Subject distinct from Descriptor 
Document. And if not, then you or your Linked Data aware user agent 
(based on your commitment to semantic-fidelity) can add the missing 
triples en route to Name | Address disambiguation.


It's a Beauty & Beholder issue, ultimately :-)

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Status codes / IR vs. NIR -- 303 vs. 200

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 11:51 AM, Lars Heuer wrote:

Hi Kingsley,

[...]

An example:

returns 200 with no machine-readable data (like RDFa).

Methinks RDFa is machine readable. The machine simply needs to
understand RDFa. Thus, if the user agent is committed to RDFa, it should
be able to interpret RDFa content; giving the content an option to
clarify matters re. whether an IRI is Name or Address.

Of course RDFa is machine readable. My example was HTML *without*
RDFa.


Ah! misread "no machine-readable data (like RDFa).." :-)

If I use the
identifier today, it has to be interpreted as "I talk about that
particular IRI (an HTML document)".

No, that's only true if you interpret what HTTP is accurately relaying
to you re. your quest for a Document, as the end of the matter.
You to HTTP Server: GET me a Document at URL
HTTP Server: Found it (200 OK) or look somewhere else (30X).

[...]

I guess you didn't understand the example. Maybe I didn't explain well
enough, though.


Misread as per comments above.


[...]

Again, my response stands. That's the case re. Virtuoso. You are saying:
I haven't experienced that. Hence my insistence re. Virtuoso.

A product cannot be the answer of the deeper problem.


I am not saying a product is the answer to a deeper problem. I am 
saying, a product exists that demonstrates how a problem can be solved :-)



Anyway, the problem of identifying subjects via IRIs is rather old
(see [1] for one example) and it seems that there is no appealing
solution yet (leaving Topic Maps aside for the moment)


It's old, but you can make a statement about an entity in the Amazon 
data space by just tacking on "#this" to the URL (Address) thereby 
making it a Name. Then say whatever about it in your linked data space.




[1]

Best regards,
Lars



--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Google Refine 2.0

[David Huynh]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> David:
> I hope you understand that if a response doesn't start with:
> "Congratulations David...", it doesn't mean I am criticizing your work. You
> know me much better than that, I hope, as per my comments above to Leigh.
>

Kingsley, of course, I was just ... picking on you :-) 'cause every first
response I get from you is along the line, "does it do RDF?" :-) No, I don't
"do" RDF anymore, but I give away ideas, UI designs, code, and make my stuff
extensible so that if you want to do RDF on it, you can.


I just asked a question, where the focus of the question was scoped to an
> area of Google Refine that I hadn't looked into i.e., beyond its core ETL
> functionality. Again, an aspect, not the whole thing.
>
> FWIW - I watched the video after sending my initial mail, and it didn't
> answer my question re. endgame. None of that diminishes the splendor of
> Google Refine. Anyway, when we're done with Pivot, a lot of the ramblings we
> had (offline) should become much clearer i.e., the area that I've always
> been interested in i.e., making Linked Data absolute fun for end-users, and
> in the process evolve them into "Citizen Data Analysts".  We took this
> journey once before via ODBC, but ODBC has platform specificity, data model,
> and data representation limitations that don't exist in the Linked Data
> realm. On the other hand though, ODBC ecosystem established solid patterns
> (loose coupling of compliant applications and drivers) that made it fun --
> once you got past the aforementioned shortcomings.


I'm pretty sure we're on the same page regarding the big vision: make data
more fun, more useful, and easier to deal with. My focus is on a smaller and
more immediate problem: how to let people handle messy data (without having
to resort to programming, or a $500K enterprise level data analysis
package). There are plenty of existing ETL software products, and even open
source projects

http://code.google.com/p/google-refine/wiki/RelatedSoftware

But Refine is intended to be for non-expert users and one-off use cases (as
opposed to building a persistent data pipeline).

David

Re: Status codes / IR vs. NIR -- 303 vs. 200

[Lars Heuer]

Hi Kingsley,

[...]
>> An example:
>> 
>> returns 200 with no machine-readable data (like RDFa).

> Methinks RDFa is machine readable. The machine simply needs to 
> understand RDFa. Thus, if the user agent is committed to RDFa, it should
> be able to interpret RDFa content; giving the content an option to 
> clarify matters re. whether an IRI is Name or Address.

Of course RDFa is machine readable. My example was HTML *without*
RDFa.

>> If I use the
>> identifier today, it has to be interpreted as "I talk about that
>> particular IRI (an HTML document)".

> No, that's only true if you interpret what HTTP is accurately relaying
> to you re. your quest for a Document, as the end of the matter.

> You to HTTP Server: GET me a Document at URL
> HTTP Server: Found it (200 OK) or look somewhere else (30X).
[...]

I guess you didn't understand the example. Maybe I didn't explain well
enough, though.

[...]
> Again, my response stands. That's the case re. Virtuoso. You are saying:
> I haven't experienced that. Hence my insistence re. Virtuoso.

A product cannot be the answer of the deeper problem.

Anyway, the problem of identifying subjects via IRIs is rather old
(see [1] for one example) and it seems that there is no appealing
solution yet (leaving Topic Maps aside for the moment)

[1] 

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 

Re: Google Refine 2.0

[David Huynh]

Thanks, Leigh! And that's exactly what I'm hoping for--I can contribute UI
ideas beneficial to the SW / LOD community, while leaving RDF specific work
to those who know it best.

I'm starting to accumulate a list of reconciliation services, starting with
yours :)

http://code.google.com/p/google-refine/wiki/ReconcilableDataSources

David

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Leigh Dodds  wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Congratulations on getting the 2.0 release out. I'm looking forward to
> working with it some more.
>
> Kingsley asked about extensions. You've already mentioned the work
> done at DERI, and I've previously pointed at the reconciliation API I
> built over the Talis Platform [1].
>
> I used Refines' excellent plugin architecture to create a simple
> upload tool for loading Talis Platform stores. This hooks into both
> core Gridworks and the DERI RDF extension to support POSTing of the
> RDF to a service. Code is just a proof of concept [2] but I have a
> more refined version that I parked briefly whilst awaiting the 2.0
> release.
>
> I think this nicely demonstrates how open Refine is as tool.
>
> Cheers,
>
> L.
>
> [1].
> http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2010/08/gridworks-reconciliation-api-implementation/
> [2]. https://github.com/ldodds/gridworks-talisplatform
>
> --
> Leigh Dodds
> Programme Manager, Talis Platform
> Talis
> leigh.do...@talis.com
> http://www.talis.com
>

Re: Status codes / IR vs. NIR -- 303 vs. 200

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 9:18 AM, Lars Heuer wrote:

Hi Kingsley,

[...]

identity problem. Unless we'd introduce a concept to distinguish
between NIRs and IRs (like Topic Maps does with Subject Identifiers
and Subject Locators).


Topic Maps isn't doing anything that isn't being done via Linked Data
patterns, already. I've never groked this generally held position from
Topic Maps community.

I speak about the NIR vs. IR problem. Topic Maps provides one possible
solution for it (without status codes). That's all.

Status codes are a suboptimal solution, imo.


Suboptimal for disambiguation at the content level. Okay when it comes 
to disambiguating Name or Address with regards to an HTTP request IRI.



An example:

returns 200 with no machine-readable data (like RDFa).


Methinks RDFa is machine readable. The machine simply needs to 
understand RDFa. Thus, if the user agent is committed to RDFa, it should 
be able to interpret RDFa content; giving the content an option to 
clarify matters re. whether an IRI is Name or Address.



If I use the
identifier today, it has to be interpreted as "I talk about that
particular IRI (an HTML document)".


No, that's only true if you interpret what HTTP is accurately relaying 
to you re. your quest for a Document, as the end of the matter.


You to HTTP Server: GET me a Document at URL
HTTP Server: Found it (200 OK) or look somewhere else (30X).

You read the document and find out its about a 'Toucan'. You (in human 
mode) disambiguate without even knowing it. If a user agent (machine) 
retrieves the same Document, it should be able to understand what the 
Document is about, and that includes the fact that the URL isn't an 
Address it was used as a Name, thus said user agent will not walk or be 
exposed to a relational property graph where Document properties are 
incoherently intermingled with 'Toucan' properties.

Tomorrow, Amazon starts to serve
RDFa and states that this particular IRI represents a book with the
name A and the ISBN X. The status code does not change, but the
interpretation of the IRI changes.


Well an RDFa agent that is Linked Data aware should be fine, if its 
dog-foods i.e. processes the self-describing data it retrieves :-)

Further, if status codes rule the interpretation of an IRI, an IRI can
either be a NIR or an IR but not play both roles.


HTTP Status Codes rule (correctly) for Document location 
(Content-Location) and Document Content retrieval (Content-Type).



  If I want to make an
statement like

"I don't like design of the HTML page located at
 "

I cannot do that, since the IRI represents either a book or a HTML
page.


Depends on the semantic-fidelity that you or your Linked Data aware user 
agent commit to .

[...]

You can work with DBpedia offline, assuming you install Virtuoso +
DBpedia data from a USB to your local drive. It will work absolutely fine.

Of course I can work with DBpedia offline even without having Virtuoso
installed. The question was: Do all need all these fancy status codes?
If I need the status codes, I need to access each IRI to interpret it
correctly.


Again, my response stands. That's the case re. Virtuoso. You are saying: 
I haven't experienced that. Hence my insistence re. Virtuoso.


You can explore the DBpedia data sets via HTML pages using: 
http://localhost/describe/?uri=, for instance.



If I don't need the status codes, it should be pretty meaningless if I
get a the status code 200 or 303 from a resource.


Virtuoso makes full commitment to Linked Data and associated 
semantic-fidelity expressed in the data.

Since you said

   """
   The 303 heuristic is how Name | Address disambiguation is handled re.
   Linked Data.
   """

I seem to need the status codes. An algorithm cannot look at the
DBpedia data and tell me what's meant as IR and what's meant as NIR
without status codes.


Virtuoso != Apache.

You might be better off just trying what I say :-)


Best regards,
Lars



--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Semantic Ambiguity

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 9:03 AM, William Waites wrote:

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 08:40:14AM -0500, Patrick Durusau wrote:

Semantic ambiguity isn't going to go away. It is part and parcel of the
very act of communication.

[...]

Witness the lack of uniform semantics in the linked data community over
something as common as sameAs. As the linked data community expands, so
are the number of interpretations of sameAs.

Why can't we fashion solutions for how we are rather than wishing for
solution for how we aren't?

I was at a lecture by Dave Robertson [0] the other day where
he talked about some of the ideas behind one of his current
projects [1]. Particularly relevant was the idea of completely
abandoning any attempts at global semantics and instead working
on making sure the semantics are clear on a local communication
channel (as I understood it).


Yes, I am can express what I want in my Data Space. You don't have to 
make adopt my inference rules, likewise, you can't stop me from having 
them. It's my data space after all :-)


My Zebra might be your Stallion, that's just a claim in my data space, 
you don't have to believe it etc.. Luckily, I've lived in a number of 
countries, so appreciation of multiple world views is hard wired into my 
essence. I'll debate you, but still fundamentally understant that we 
should always be able to "agree to disagree".



So maybe that would mean a different meaning for sameAs in
different datasets, and that's just fine as long as the reader
is aware of that and fasions some transformation from their
notion of sameAs to their peer's, mutatis mutandis for other
predicates and classes.


Yes, which is why we have the following capabilities in our platform 
(Virtuoso):


1. Named Graphs
2. Backward- or Forward-Chained Inference capability
3. Conditional application of Inference Rules via SPARQL query process 
pragmas.


Its also why, when we add linksets to the Virtuoso instance hosting 
DBpedia, they end up in their specific Named Graphs, at least until 
there is general consensus re. addition to the main DBpedia Named Graph. 
Thus, people and user agents have access to DBpedia data via a variety 
of context lenses.



In some ways this is similar to how we use language. If I'm
talking to a computer scientist I'll use a different but
overlapping sub-language of English than if I'm talking to the
postman.


Yep!

And once you speak more than one pure language or vernacular you 
experience this in full glory.



  If I'm talking to a non-native English speaker I'll
modify my speech so as to be more easily understood. Around
here, "tea" means "supper" but a short distance to the South
it more likely means a snack with cakes and cucumber sandwiches.


Some Africans don't see a Zebra or Horse as being different. Thus, they 
would refer to both as Horses. That doesn't make that a fact for the 
whole world.



The important thing is a context of communication which modifies
-- and disambiguates meaning.


Yep!


This might be touched on in the
RDF Semantics with the not often mentioned idea of an
interpretation of a graph.

How does this square with the apparent tendency to want to treat
statements as overarching universal truths?


There are no universal truth, bar the possibility that the 
aforementioned claim might be true :-)



Cheers,
-w

[0] http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/groups/ssp/members/dave.htm
[1] http://socialcomputer.eu/




--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: What is a URL? And What is a URI

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 8:40 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

Kingsley,

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 07:58 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

On 11/12/10 5:59 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:







Patrick / Dave,

I am hoping as the responses come in we might pick up something. There
is certainly some confusion out there.

Note my comments yesterday re. URIs and Referents. I believe this
association to be 1:1, but others may not necessarily see it so.


Isn't it that "...others may not necessarily see it so." that lies at
the heart of semantic ambiguity?


Yes!

We are perpetuating ambiguity by conflating realms, ultimately. The Web 
of URLs != Web of URIs. They are mutually inclusive (symbiotic).



Semantic ambiguity isn't going to go away. It is part and parcel of the
very act of communication.


This is why Context is King.

You can use Context to reduce ambiguity.

A good Comedian is a great Context flipper, for instance.

Ambiguity exists in the real-world too, we use Context to disambiguate 
every second of our lives.



It is true that is very limited circumstances with very few semantics,
such as TCP/IP, that is it possible to establish reliable communications
across multiple recipients. (Or it might be more correct to say
semantics of concern to such a small community that agreement is
possible. I will have to pull Stevens off the shelf to see.)

As the amount of semantics increases (or the size of the community), so
does the potential for and therefore the amount of semantic ambiguity.
(I am sure someone has published that as some ratio but I don't recall
the reference.)


So if a community believes in self-describing data, where the data is 
the conveyor of context, why shouldn't it be able express such believes 
in its own best practice options? Basically, we can solve ambiguity in 
the context of Linked Data oriented applications. Of course, that 
doesn't apply to applications that don't grok Linked Data or buy into 
the semantic fidelity expressed by the content of a structured data 
bearing (carrying) resource e.g. one based on EAV model + HTTP URI based 
Names.



Witness the lack of uniform semantics in the linked data community over
something as common as sameAs. As the linked data community expands, so
are the number of interpretations of sameAs.


IMHO. There are a number of people that postulate about owl:sameAs on an 
"its my way of the highway" basis. In my experience, said position 
reflect partial understanding of Linked Data and the ability to 
inference conditionally. Yes, you can inference conditionally if 
inference only occurs when a collection of rules are actually applied, 
and the platform in question offers this kind of deftness. There isn't a 
rule that says all inference must be forward-chained, unfortunately, 
many of the people that gripe about owl:sameAs (good, bad, and damn 
right ugly) do so assuming:


1. Linked Data and Inference are inextricably bound
2. Inference must be forward-chained as opposed to having a 
backward-chained option

3. Inference can't be optional.

Anyway, Harry, Pat et al. have a great paper [1] on owl:sameAs (you may 
have read this already). In addition there's a nice Similarity Ontology 
[2] that does the opposite of endless postulation, it just adds 
granularity by offering a collection of terms people may or may not opt 
to use.

Why can't we fashion solutions for how we are rather than wishing for
solution for how we aren't?


I think Ian's option addresses that problem.

Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend!


Yes! Hope the same for you :-)

Links:

1. http://iswc2010.semanticweb.org/pdf/261.pdf -- Harry Halpin, Patrick 
J. Hayes, James P. McCusker, Deborah L. McGuinness, and Henry S. 
Thompson re. owl:sameAs field use

2. http://bit.ly/aBaPHt -- Similarity Ontology Overview


Patrick




--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

RE: survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label?

[Gong Cheng]

Falcons is using  to discover label-like
properties.
But it is OK to remove  because
we have hard-coded foaf:name as a label-like property.

Cheers,
Gong

> -Original Message-
> From: public-lod-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Dan
> Brickley
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:09 PM
> To: foaf-dev Friend of a; public-lod
> Subject: survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf
rdfs:label?
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> The FOAF RDFS/OWL document currently includes the triple
> 
>  foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label .
> 
> This is one of several things that OWL DL oriented tools (eg.
> http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator) don't seem to like, since it
> mixes application schemas with the W3C builtins.
> 
> So for now, pure fact-finding. I would like to know if anyone is
> actively using this triple, eg. for Linked Data browsers. If we can
> avoid this degenerating into a thread about the merits or otherwise of
> description logic, I would be hugely grateful.
> 
> So -
> 
> 1. do you have code / applications that checks to see if a property is
> "rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label" ?
> 2. do you have any scope to change this behaviour (eg. it's a web
> service under your control, rather than shipping desktop software )
> 3. would you consider checking for ?x rdf:type foaf:LabelProperty or
> other idioms instead (or rather, as well).
> 4. would you object if the triple "foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf
> rdfs:label " is removed from future version of the main FOAF RDFS/OWL
> schema? (it could be linked elsewhere, mind)
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Dan

Re: Google Refine 2.0

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 8:35 AM, Leigh Dodds wrote:

Hi Kingsley:

I recommend you take some time to work with Refine, watch the demos,
and perhaps read the paper that Richard et al published on how they
have used and extended Refine (or Gridworks as it was)

Leigh,

You are repeating David's comments to me, which I deliberately ignored 
re. undertone.


Please Google up on pattern: gridworks kidehen. I celebrated the 
innovation before most, David and I do communicate offline too, 
typically he pings me when he has something exciting, and we have our 
little back and forth about issues we've argued about since 2007.


I am not saying I don't know what Google Refine does. I am not alien to 
data reconciliation, I am curious about the end game i.e., options for 
put the data in other data spaces beyond Freebase.


David:
I hope you understand that if a response doesn't start with: 
"Congratulations David...", it doesn't mean I am criticizing your work. 
You know me much better than that, I hope, as per my comments above to 
Leigh.


I just asked a question, where the focus of the question was scoped to 
an area of Google Refine that I hadn't looked into i.e., beyond its core 
ETL functionality. Again, an aspect, not the whole thing.


FWIW - I watched the video after sending my initial mail, and it didn't 
answer my question re. endgame. None of that diminishes the splendor of 
Google Refine. Anyway, when we're done with Pivot, a lot of the 
ramblings we had (offline) should become much clearer i.e., the area 
that I've always been interested in i.e., making Linked Data absolute 
fun for end-users, and in the process evolve them into "Citizen Data 
Analysts".  We took this journey once before via ODBC, but ODBC has 
platform specificity, data model, and data representation limitations 
that don't exist in the Linked Data realm. On the other hand though, 
ODBC ecosystem established solid patterns (loose coupling of compliant 
applications and drivers) that made it fun -- once you got past the 
aforementioned shortcomings.



But to answer you question:

On 12 November 2010 13:23, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:

How does the DERI effort differ from yours, if at all?

They have produced a plugin that complements the ability to map a
table structure to a Freebase schema and graph, by providing the same
functionality for RDF. So a simple way to define how RDF should be
generated from data in a Refine project, using either existing or
custom schemas.


Thanks for the answer which means: Yes, to the issue of an RDF output 
option. But, unclear re. writing data directly to a SPARQL compliant 
Quad / Triple store.



The end result can then be exported using various serialisations.

Naturally, once its RDF.

My extension simply extends that further by providing the ability to
POST the data to a Talis Platform store.


Yes, but why not any SPARUL endpoint since we have a standard in place? 
Which means the LODCloud benefits re. data quality etc?



  It'd be trivial to tweak that
code to support POSTing to another resource, or wrapping the data into
a SPARUL insert


Yes, so why not make the tweak. ASAP?

Ideally it'd be nice to roll the core of this into the DERI extension
for wider use.


Good idea re. LATC project :-)


Cheers,

L.



--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Semantic Ambiguity

[Henry Story]

I'd start differently. Start with the social web, and simple terms such
as foaf and sioc. The build up meanings from the ground up, piece by
piece by introducing value at each point in the game. Grow the network
effect that way. Some of the issues of the linked data movement are in my
view just issues of the complexity of the vocabularies and the size of the
task at hand. Global naming is going to be useful, but by taking such a big
problem, the linked data community is just confronting many big problems
simultaneously, which is why it can seem intractable. The network effect
will end up working itself out. 

I go into the social web, the network effect and linked data more in here

http://www.slideshare.net/bblfish/philosophy-and-the-social-web-5583083

Henry

On 12 Nov 2010, at 15:03, William Waites wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 08:40:14AM -0500, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>> 
>> Semantic ambiguity isn't going to go away. It is part and parcel of the
>> very act of communication. 
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> Witness the lack of uniform semantics in the linked data community over
>> something as common as sameAs. As the linked data community expands, so
>> are the number of interpretations of sameAs. 
>> 
>> Why can't we fashion solutions for how we are rather than wishing for
>> solution for how we aren't? 
> 
> I was at a lecture by Dave Robertson [0] the other day where
> he talked about some of the ideas behind one of his current
> projects [1]. Particularly relevant was the idea of completely
> abandoning any attempts at global semantics and instead working
> on making sure the semantics are clear on a local communication
> channel (as I understood it).
> 
> So maybe that would mean a different meaning for sameAs in
> different datasets, and that's just fine as long as the reader
> is aware of that and fasions some transformation from their
> notion of sameAs to their peer's, mutatis mutandis for other
> predicates and classes.
> 
> In some ways this is similar to how we use language. If I'm
> talking to a computer scientist I'll use a different but 
> overlapping sub-language of English than if I'm talking to the
> postman. If I'm talking to a non-native English speaker I'll
> modify my speech so as to be more easily understood. Around
> here, "tea" means "supper" but a short distance to the South
> it more likely means a snack with cakes and cucumber sandwiches.
> 
> The important thing is a context of communication which modifies
> -- and disambiguates meaning. This might be touched on in the
> RDF Semantics with the not often mentioned idea of an
> interpretation of a graph.
> 
> How does this square with the apparent tendency to want to treat
> statements as overarching universal truths?
> 
> Cheers,
> -w
> 
> [0] http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/groups/ssp/members/dave.htm
> [1] http://socialcomputer.eu/
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Re: Status codes / IR vs. NIR -- 303 vs. 200

[Lars Heuer]

Hi Kingsley,

[...]
>> identity problem. Unless we'd introduce a concept to distinguish
>> between NIRs and IRs (like Topic Maps does with Subject Identifiers
>> and Subject Locators).
>>

> Topic Maps isn't doing anything that isn't being done via Linked Data 
> patterns, already. I've never groked this generally held position from
> Topic Maps community.

I speak about the NIR vs. IR problem. Topic Maps provides one possible
solution for it (without status codes). That's all.

Status codes are a suboptimal solution, imo.

An example:

returns 200 with no machine-readable data (like RDFa). If I use the
identifier today, it has to be interpreted as "I talk about that
particular IRI (an HTML document)". Tomorrow, Amazon starts to serve
RDFa and states that this particular IRI represents a book with the
name A and the ISBN X. The status code does not change, but the
interpretation of the IRI changes.

Further, if status codes rule the interpretation of an IRI, an IRI can
either be a NIR or an IR but not play both roles. If I want to make an
statement like

   "I don't like design of the HTML page located at
"

I cannot do that, since the IRI represents either a book or a HTML
page.

[...]
> You can work with DBpedia offline, assuming you install Virtuoso + 
> DBpedia data from a USB to your local drive. It will work absolutely fine.

Of course I can work with DBpedia offline even without having Virtuoso
installed. The question was: Do all need all these fancy status codes?
If I need the status codes, I need to access each IRI to interpret it
correctly.

If I don't need the status codes, it should be pretty meaningless if I
get a the status code 200 or 303 from a resource.

Since you said

  """
  The 303 heuristic is how Name | Address disambiguation is handled re.
  Linked Data.
  """

I seem to need the status codes. An algorithm cannot look at the
DBpedia data and tell me what's meant as IR and what's meant as NIR
without status codes.

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 

Semantic Ambiguity

[William Waites]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 08:40:14AM -0500, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> 
> Semantic ambiguity isn't going to go away. It is part and parcel of the
> very act of communication. 
> 
> [...]
> 
> Witness the lack of uniform semantics in the linked data community over
> something as common as sameAs. As the linked data community expands, so
> are the number of interpretations of sameAs. 
> 
> Why can't we fashion solutions for how we are rather than wishing for
> solution for how we aren't? 

I was at a lecture by Dave Robertson [0] the other day where
he talked about some of the ideas behind one of his current
projects [1]. Particularly relevant was the idea of completely
abandoning any attempts at global semantics and instead working
on making sure the semantics are clear on a local communication
channel (as I understood it).

So maybe that would mean a different meaning for sameAs in
different datasets, and that's just fine as long as the reader
is aware of that and fasions some transformation from their
notion of sameAs to their peer's, mutatis mutandis for other
predicates and classes.

In some ways this is similar to how we use language. If I'm
talking to a computer scientist I'll use a different but 
overlapping sub-language of English than if I'm talking to the
postman. If I'm talking to a non-native English speaker I'll
modify my speech so as to be more easily understood. Around
here, "tea" means "supper" but a short distance to the South
it more likely means a snack with cakes and cucumber sandwiches.

The important thing is a context of communication which modifies
-- and disambiguates meaning. This might be touched on in the
RDF Semantics with the not often mentioned idea of an
interpretation of a graph.

How does this square with the apparent tendency to want to treat
statements as overarching universal truths?

Cheers,
-w

[0] http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/groups/ssp/members/dave.htm
[1] http://socialcomputer.eu/

Re: What is a URL? And What is a URI

[Patrick Durusau]

Kingsley,

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 07:58 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 11/12/10 5:59 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: 



> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> Patrick / Dave,
> 
> I am hoping as the responses come in we might pick up something. There
> is certainly some confusion out there. 
> 
> Note my comments yesterday re. URIs and Referents. I believe this
> association to be 1:1, but others may not necessarily see it so.
> 

Isn't it that "...others may not necessarily see it so." that lies at
the heart of semantic ambiguity? 

Semantic ambiguity isn't going to go away. It is part and parcel of the
very act of communication. 

It is true that is very limited circumstances with very few semantics,
such as TCP/IP, that is it possible to establish reliable communications
across multiple recipients. (Or it might be more correct to say
semantics of concern to such a small community that agreement is
possible. I will have to pull Stevens off the shelf to see.)

As the amount of semantics increases (or the size of the community), so
does the potential for and therefore the amount of semantic ambiguity.
(I am sure someone has published that as some ratio but I don't recall
the reference.)

Witness the lack of uniform semantics in the linked data community over
something as common as sameAs. As the linked data community expands, so
are the number of interpretations of sameAs. 

Why can't we fashion solutions for how we are rather than wishing for
solution for how we aren't? 

Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend!

Patrick 

Re: Google Refine 2.0

[Leigh Dodds]

Hi Kingsley:

I recommend you take some time to work with Refine, watch the demos,
and perhaps read the paper that Richard et al published on how they
have used and extended Refine (or Gridworks as it was)

But to answer you question:

On 12 November 2010 13:23, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:
> How does the DERI effort differ from yours, if at all?

They have produced a plugin that complements the ability to map a
table structure to a Freebase schema and graph, by providing the same
functionality for RDF. So a simple way to define how RDF should be
generated from data in a Refine project, using either existing or
custom schemas.

The end result can then be exported using various serialisations.

My extension simply extends that further by providing the ability to
POST the data to a Talis Platform store. It'd be trivial to tweak that
code to support POSTing to another resource, or wrapping the data into
a SPARUL insert

Ideally it'd be nice to roll the core of this into the DERI extension
for wider use.

Cheers,

L.
-- 
Leigh Dodds
Programme Manager, Talis Platform
Talis
leigh.do...@talis.com
http://www.talis.com

Re: Google Refine 2.0

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 7:34 AM, Leigh Dodds wrote:

Hi David,

Congratulations on getting the 2.0 release out. I'm looking forward to
working with it some more.

Kingsley asked about extensions. You've already mentioned the work
done at DERI, and I've previously pointed at the reconciliation API I
built over the Talis Platform [1].

I used Refines' excellent plugin architecture to create a simple
upload tool for loading Talis Platform stores. This hooks into both
core Gridworks and the DERI RDF extension to support POSTing of the
RDF to a service. Code is just a proof of concept [2] but I have a
more refined version that I parked briefly whilst awaiting the 2.0
release.

I think this nicely demonstrates how open Refine is as tool.

Cheers,

L.

[1]. 
http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2010/08/gridworks-reconciliation-api-implementation/
[2]. https://github.com/ldodds/gridworks-talisplatform


Leigh,

How does the DERI effort differ from yours, if at all?

As you must know, I am trying to find out if there is a solution for 
just dropping data into the LOD Cloud via a SPARQL endpoint that 
supports SPARUL. Or via HTTP IUD (Insert, Update, Delete) operations.


Just need some clarity as I haven't had the time to delve into this 
important matter re. Google Refine, just yet.



--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Status codes / IR vs. NIR -- 303 vs. 200

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 7:22 AM, Lars Heuer wrote:

Hi Kingsley,

[...]

If I want an RDF/XML representation of the document, I can ask for

   Accept: application/rdf+xml

and Wikipedia would (ideally) return an RDF/XML representation of that
resource which tells me that John Lennon is a person who was born at
... murdered at ... was part of a group named ... etc.


Yes, so you received a document stating all of the above, who is the
Subject? How is the Subject Identified?

I don't understand the question. A person named "John Lennon" is the
subject. The subject is identified by the IRI.

If I issue a

   GET  Accept: application/x-tm+ctm

and the server responses with (using the Topic Maps syntax CTM since I
am not that familiar with RDF syntaxes):

   
  isa ex:person;
  - "John Lennon";
  born-at 1940-10-09;
  died-at 1980-12-08;
  member-of.

I'd know that the above mentioned IRI represents a NIR (a person)
which was born at .. died at .. etc.

Where is the problem with that approach?

[...]

Have to drop the fact that your non-web-sign-processor (DNA CPU)
already groks "John Lennon", and does a lot of fancy processing with
frames en route to disambiguation and context manifestation.

I don't understand that statement. A web agent would also know that
the IRI represents a person which has the name "John Lennon".

[...]

I see, DBpedia provides different IRIs. That's fine. But it's not
possible to keep   (or
   if that matters) and make
statements about that, right? I cannot make statements which are
interpreted rightly without an Internet connection. I need the status
codes.

[...]

Personally, it can be solved at the application level by application
developers making a decision about the source of semantic fidelity i.e
HTTP or the Data itself.

Yes, it can be solved at application level. Maybe on a per domain
basis, but that's exactly the problem. Neither 303 nor 200 solves the
identity problem. Unless we'd introduce a concept to distinguish
between NIRs and IRs (like Topic Maps does with Subject Identifiers
and Subject Locators).



Topic Maps isn't doing anything that isn't being done via Linked Data 
patterns, already. I've never groked this generally held position from 
Topic Maps community.


An Identifier is an Identifier. It has a Referent.
A URI is an Identifier.
You can use an Identifier as Name or an Address.

Trouble is that HTTP is about document location and content 
transmission. Thus, all URLs (Location Identifiers / Addresses) 
ultimately resolve to Data. URIs in the generic sense don't, and you can 
use an HTTP URI as a Name.


The 303 heuristic is how Name | Address disambiguation is handled re. 
Linked Data.


A new option has emerged, which I think is pretty much what you outline 
re. Topic Maps where, based on self-describing structured content (e.g. 
RDF formatted data) transmitted from a URL, a slash terminated URL can 
be treated as an HTTP URI based Name, by an application overriding the 
conventional assumptions culled from HTTP responses i.e., 200 OK, 
becomes Okay.



I'd tend to agree that 200 seems to be easier to handle than 303 (even
if it does not solve the identity problem either).


I don't see how it doesn't provide a solution to the Names | Address 
disambiguation problem.



And fragment IRIs
do not solve that problem either. It's just a problem shift, imo.


Maybe an imperfect solution since disambiguation isn't handled by the 
data itself.



[...]

Side note: Each subject/object needs a GET (assuming that predicates
are always NIRs) to interpret the statement correctly... Does it
scale? Let's assume you'd send me a DBpedia dump. I cannot interpret
it correctly, unless I have an Internet connection?

What about when I send you DBpedia in the post on a USB key ? :-)

I don't see how that statement contradicts my statement that I always
need an Internet connection.
  If you send me DBpedia offline, I need an
Internet connection if I want to import the stuff and want to
interpret the triples correctly if a 200 / 303 status code is
necessary to handle the IRIs right.


You can work with DBpedia offline, assuming you install Virtuoso + 
DBpedia data from a USB to your local drive. It will work absolutely fine.


The green pages are just browser pages, everything you do online you can 
replicate offline, no problem at all re. DBpedia data. Of course if you 
follow an out-bound link to a resource (descriptor document) outside the 
DBpedia data set, you will need an internet connection if the data isn't 
local.




Best regards,
Lars



--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: What is a URL? And What is a URI

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 5:59 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

Dave,

Thanks!

I was working on a much longer and convoluted response.

Best to refer to the canonical source and let it go.

Patrick


On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 09:22 +, Dave Reynolds wrote:

On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 12:52 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

All,

As the conversation about HTTP responses evolves, I am inclined to
believe that most still believe that:

1. URL is equivalent to a URI
2. URI is a fancier term for URI
3. URI is equivalent to URL.

I think my opinion on this matter is clear, but I am very interested
in the views of anyone that don't agree with the following:

1. URI is an abstraction for Identifiers that work at InterWeb scale
2. A URI can serve as a Name
3. A URI can serve as an Address
4. A Name != Address
5. We locate Data at Addresses
6. Names can be used to provide indirection to Addresses i.e., Names
can Resolve to Data.

Why would this be a matter of opinion? :)

After all RFC3986 et al are Standards Track and have quite clear
statements on what Identifier connotes in the context of URI.
Such as:

"""
Identifier

   An identifier embodies the information required to distinguish
   what is being identified from all other things within its scope of
   identification.  Our use of the terms "identify" and "identifying"
   refer to this purpose of distinguishing one resource from all
   other resources, regardless of how that purpose is accomplished
   (e.g., by name, address, or context).  These terms should not be
   mistaken as an assumption that an identifier defines or embodies
   the identity of what is referenced, though that may be the case
   for some identifiers.  Nor should it be assumed that a system
   using URIs will access the resource identified: in many cases,
   URIs are used to denote resources without any intention that they
   be accessed.
"""

Dave







Patrick / Dave,

I am hoping as the responses come in we might pick up something. There 
is certainly some confusion out there.


Note my comments yesterday re. URIs and Referents. I believe this 
association to be 1:1, but others may not necessarily see it so.


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Google Refine 2.0

[Leigh Dodds]

Hi David,

Congratulations on getting the 2.0 release out. I'm looking forward to
working with it some more.

Kingsley asked about extensions. You've already mentioned the work
done at DERI, and I've previously pointed at the reconciliation API I
built over the Talis Platform [1].

I used Refines' excellent plugin architecture to create a simple
upload tool for loading Talis Platform stores. This hooks into both
core Gridworks and the DERI RDF extension to support POSTing of the
RDF to a service. Code is just a proof of concept [2] but I have a
more refined version that I parked briefly whilst awaiting the 2.0
release.

I think this nicely demonstrates how open Refine is as tool.

Cheers,

L.

[1]. 
http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2010/08/gridworks-reconciliation-api-implementation/
[2]. https://github.com/ldodds/gridworks-talisplatform

-- 
Leigh Dodds
Programme Manager, Talis Platform
Talis
leigh.do...@talis.com
http://www.talis.com

Re: What is a URL? And What is a URI

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/10 4:22 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:

On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 12:52 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

All,

As the conversation about HTTP responses evolves, I am inclined to
believe that most still believe that:

1. URL is equivalent to a URI
2. URI is a fancier term for URI
3. URI is equivalent to URL.

I think my opinion on this matter is clear, but I am very interested
in the views of anyone that don't agree with the following:

1. URI is an abstraction for Identifiers that work at InterWeb scale
2. A URI can serve as a Name
3. A URI can serve as an Address
4. A Name != Address
5. We locate Data at Addresses
6. Names can be used to provide indirection to Addresses i.e., Names
can Resolve to Data.

Why would this be a matter of opinion? :)

After all RFC3986 et al are Standards Track and have quite clear
statements on what Identifier connotes in the context of URI.
Such as:

"""
Identifier

   An identifier embodies the information required to distinguish
   what is being identified from all other things within its scope of
   identification.  Our use of the terms "identify" and "identifying"
   refer to this purpose of distinguishing one resource from all
   other resources, regardless of how that purpose is accomplished
   (e.g., by name, address, or context).  These terms should not be
   mistaken as an assumption that an identifier defines or embodies
   the identity of what is referenced, though that may be the case
   for some identifiers.  Nor should it be assumed that a system
   using URIs will access the resource identified: in many cases,
   URIs are used to denote resources without any intention that they
   be accessed.
"""

Dave




Dave,


IMHO. DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Service Overview (RFC) [1] has a 
clearer definition:


A person, organization, place, idea, subject matter topic/heading, and 
other real world things possess "identity" -- that is, a constellation 
of characteristics that distinguish them from any other identity. 
Associated with this abstraction can be a label used as a reference, or 
"identifier". This is the distinction between a thing and the name of 
the thing.



1. http://www.dkim.org/specs/rfc5585.html -- DomainKeys Identified Mail 
(DKIM) Service Overview RFC



--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Status codes / IR vs. NIR -- 303 vs. 200

[Lars Heuer]

Hi Kingsley,

[...]
>> If I want an RDF/XML representation of the document, I can ask for
>>
>>   Accept: application/rdf+xml
>>
>> and Wikipedia would (ideally) return an RDF/XML representation of that
>> resource which tells me that John Lennon is a person who was born at
>> ... murdered at ... was part of a group named ... etc.
>>

> Yes, so you received a document stating all of the above, who is the 
> Subject? How is the Subject Identified?

I don't understand the question. A person named "John Lennon" is the
subject. The subject is identified by the IRI.

If I issue a

  GET  Accept: application/x-tm+ctm

and the server responses with (using the Topic Maps syntax CTM since I
am not that familiar with RDF syntaxes):

  
 isa ex:person;
 - "John Lennon";
 born-at 1940-10-09;
 died-at 1980-12-08;
 member-of .

I'd know that the above mentioned IRI represents a NIR (a person)
which was born at .. died at .. etc.

Where is the problem with that approach?

[...]
> Have to drop the fact that your non-web-sign-processor (DNA CPU)
> already groks "John Lennon", and does a lot of fancy processing with 
> frames en route to disambiguation and context manifestation.

I don't understand that statement. A web agent would also know that
the IRI represents a person which has the name "John Lennon".

[...]
>> I see, DBpedia provides different IRIs. That's fine. But it's not
>> possible to keep  (or
>>   if that matters) and make
>> statements about that, right? I cannot make statements which are
>> interpreted rightly without an Internet connection. I need the status
>> codes.
>>
>> [...]
>>> Personally, it can be solved at the application level by application
>>> developers making a decision about the source of semantic fidelity i.e
>>> HTTP or the Data itself.

Yes, it can be solved at application level. Maybe on a per domain
basis, but that's exactly the problem. Neither 303 nor 200 solves the
identity problem. Unless we'd introduce a concept to distinguish
between NIRs and IRs (like Topic Maps does with Subject Identifiers
and Subject Locators).

I'd tend to agree that 200 seems to be easier to handle than 303 (even
if it does not solve the identity problem either). And fragment IRIs
do not solve that problem either. It's just a problem shift, imo.

[...]
>> Side note: Each subject/object needs a GET (assuming that predicates
>> are always NIRs) to interpret the statement correctly... Does it
>> scale? Let's assume you'd send me a DBpedia dump. I cannot interpret
>> it correctly, unless I have an Internet connection?

> What about when I send you DBpedia in the post on a USB key ? :-)

I don't see how that statement contradicts my statement that I always
need an Internet connection. If you send me DBpedia offline, I need an
Internet connection if I want to import the stuff and want to
interpret the triples correctly if a 200 / 303 status code is
necessary to handle the IRIs right.

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 

Re: survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label?

[Bernard Vatant]

Hi Dan

For the record what happened to geonames ontology re. this issue

Answering to the first publication of geonames ontology in october 2006, Tim
Berners-Lee himself asked for the "geonames:name" attribute to be declared
as a subproperty of rdfs:label to make Tabulator able to use it. And in
order to make DL tools also happy the trick was to have a "Full" ontology
declaring the subproperties of rdfs:label and importing a "Lite" ontology.
I'm afraid I can find now neither on which list this conversation took
place, nor who suggested the trick.

It was done so until version 2.0, see
http://www.geonames.org/ontology/ontology_v2.0_Full.rdf

I changed it from version 2.1, by declaring the various geonames naming
properties as subproperties of either skos:prefLabel or skos:altLabel,
kicking the issue out towards the SKOS outfield, and getting rid of this
cumbersome splitting of the ontology into a "Full" and "Lite" part.

That can't be done for foaf:name I'm afraid, but it would be interesting to
know if Tabulator uses subproperty declarations in the case of foaf:name.

Best

Bernard


2010/11/12 Dan Brickley 

> Dear all,
>
> The FOAF RDFS/OWL document currently includes the triple
>
>  foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label .
>
> This is one of several things that OWL DL oriented tools (eg.
> http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator) don't seem to like, since it
> mixes application schemas with the W3C builtins.
>
> So for now, pure fact-finding. I would like to know if anyone is
> actively using this triple, eg. for Linked Data browsers. If we can
> avoid this degenerating into a thread about the merits or otherwise of
> description logic, I would be hugely grateful.
>
> So -
>
> 1. do you have code / applications that checks to see if a property is
> "rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label" ?
> 2. do you have any scope to change this behaviour (eg. it's a web
> service under your control, rather than shipping desktop software )
> 3. would you consider checking for ?x rdf:type foaf:LabelProperty or
> other idioms instead (or rather, as well).
> 4. would you object if the triple "foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf
> rdfs:label " is removed from future version of the main FOAF RDFS/OWL
> schema? (it could be linked elsewhere, mind)
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Dan
>
>


-- 
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

Linked Data Thesaurus online (was: Re: synonym / thesaurus data)

[Angelo Veltens]

Hi there,

I have used skos:Concept for the synonym sets now and skos-xl:Label for
the terms. I linked one of the terms as prefLabel to a synset and its
synonyms as altLabel

But you can try it yourself - its online!

Example query: http://thesaurus.datenwissen.de/offen#term

Do not forget to chance the accept-header to application/rdf+xml or
text/turtle. Otherwise you will get the original xml-data from
openthesaurus.de

Awaiting your feedback :-)

Kind regards,
Angelo

Am 21.10.2010 15:25, schrieb Andreas Blumauer (punkt. netServices):
> Hi Angelo,
> 
> great idea to publish openthesaurus as linked data!
> 
> Regarding your question, here are my opinions:
> 
> 1) should skos:Concept be used for a term?
> Yes!
> 
> 2) is skos:closeMatch a good predicate to define synonyms?
> synonyms should rather be expressed via skos:altLabel (see:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos.html#altLabel)
> since each concept has exactly one URI but may have one or many altLabels
> 
> 3) can skos:closeMatch relate to skos:Collection or only to other
> skos:Concepts?
> 
> only to other skos:Concepts - domain and range of closeMatch are both
> skos:Concept
> 
> Greetings,
> Andreas
> 
> 
> 
> *Von: *"Angelo Veltens" 
> *An: *public-...@w3.org
> *Gesendet: *Donnerstag, 21. Oktober 2010 15:16:57
> *Betreff: *synonym / thesaurus data
> 
> Hi,
> 
> i am going to transform the data from http://openthesaurus.de to linked
> data and want to discuss how to organize it.
> 
> openthesaurus.de is a german thesaurus, that can expose it's data as
> xml.
> 
> Example request for the term "lustig" (funny):
> 
> Web-Access: http://www.openthesaurus.de/synonyme/search?q=lustig
> API-Access:
> http://www.openthesaurus.de/synonyme/search?q=lustig&format=text/xml
> 
> In XML the synonyms are grouped in "synsets". Each term in the synsets
> is a synonym to the requested term, but the different synsets have
> different meanings.
> 
> This is my idea to model this as linked data (example at the end of the
> mail):
> 
> A term is identified like this:
> http://localhost:8080/thesaurus/lustig#term
> URI of the RDF-Document: http://localhost:8080/thesaurus/lustig
> 
> I model a term as a skos:Concept.
> 
> I group the terms of a synset in a skos:Collection.
> 
> I relate these collections with a skos:closeMatch to the requested term.
> 
> What I am not sure about:
> 
> 1) should skos:Concept be used for a term?
> 2) is skos:closeMatch a good predicate to define synonyms?
> 3) can skos:closeMatch relate to skos:Collection or only to other
> skos:Concepts?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Angelo
> 
> Example:
> 
> <#term>
>   a    ;
>    "lustig" ;
>   
>   [ a  
>  ;
> 
> 
>  ,
>  ,
> 
>   ] ;
>   
>   [ a  
>  ;
> 
>  ,
>  ,
> 
>   ] ;
>   
>   [ a  
>  ;
> 
>  ,
>  ,
> 
>   ] ;
> 
> .
> 
> 

Re: survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label?

[Giovanni Tummarello]

Yes Sig.ma heavily checks for properties that are subclass of label
and uses them.
I think sparallax as well.
Gio

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Dan Brickley  wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The FOAF RDFS/OWL document currently includes the triple
>
>  foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label .
>
> This is one of several things that OWL DL oriented tools (eg.
> http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator) don't seem to like, since it
> mixes application schemas with the W3C builtins.
>
> So for now, pure fact-finding. I would like to know if anyone is
> actively using this triple, eg. for Linked Data browsers. If we can
> avoid this degenerating into a thread about the merits or otherwise of
> description logic, I would be hugely grateful.
>
> So -
>
> 1. do you have code / applications that checks to see if a property is
> "rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label" ?
> 2. do you have any scope to change this behaviour (eg. it's a web
> service under your control, rather than shipping desktop software )
> 3. would you consider checking for ?x rdf:type foaf:LabelProperty or
> other idioms instead (or rather, as well).
> 4. would you object if the triple "foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf
> rdfs:label " is removed from future version of the main FOAF RDFS/OWL
> schema? (it could be linked elsewhere, mind)
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Dan
>
>

survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label?

[Dan Brickley]

Dear all,

The FOAF RDFS/OWL document currently includes the triple

 foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label .

This is one of several things that OWL DL oriented tools (eg.
http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator) don't seem to like, since it
mixes application schemas with the W3C builtins.

So for now, pure fact-finding. I would like to know if anyone is
actively using this triple, eg. for Linked Data browsers. If we can
avoid this degenerating into a thread about the merits or otherwise of
description logic, I would be hugely grateful.

So -

1. do you have code / applications that checks to see if a property is
"rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label" ?
2. do you have any scope to change this behaviour (eg. it's a web
service under your control, rather than shipping desktop software )
3. would you consider checking for ?x rdf:type foaf:LabelProperty or
other idioms instead (or rather, as well).
4. would you object if the triple "foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf
rdfs:label " is removed from future version of the main FOAF RDFS/OWL
schema? (it could be linked elsewhere, mind)

Thanks in advance,

Dan

Re: What is a URL? And What is a URI

[Patrick Durusau]

Dave,

Thanks!

I was working on a much longer and convoluted response. 

Best to refer to the canonical source and let it go.

Patrick


On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 09:22 +, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 12:52 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> > All,
> > 
> > As the conversation about HTTP responses evolves, I am inclined to
> > believe that most still believe that:
> > 
> > 1. URL is equivalent to a URI
> > 2. URI is a fancier term for URI
> > 3. URI is equivalent to URL.
> > 
> > I think my opinion on this matter is clear, but I am very interested
> > in the views of anyone that don't agree with the following:
> > 
> > 1. URI is an abstraction for Identifiers that work at InterWeb scale
> > 2. A URI can serve as a Name
> > 3. A URI can serve as an Address
> > 4. A Name != Address
> > 5. We locate Data at Addresses
> > 6. Names can be used to provide indirection to Addresses i.e., Names
> > can Resolve to Data.
> 
> Why would this be a matter of opinion? :) 
> 
> After all RFC3986 et al are Standards Track and have quite clear
> statements on what Identifier connotes in the context of URI.
> Such as:
> 
> """
> Identifier 
> 
>   An identifier embodies the information required to distinguish
>   what is being identified from all other things within its scope of
>   identification.  Our use of the terms "identify" and "identifying"
>   refer to this purpose of distinguishing one resource from all
>   other resources, regardless of how that purpose is accomplished
>   (e.g., by name, address, or context).  These terms should not be
>   mistaken as an assumption that an identifier defines or embodies
>   the identity of what is referenced, though that may be the case
>   for some identifiers.  Nor should it be assumed that a system
>   using URIs will access the resource identified: in many cases,
>   URIs are used to denote resources without any intention that they
>   be accessed.
> """
> 
> Dave
> 
> 

Re: What is a URL? And What is a URI

[Dave Reynolds]

On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 12:52 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> All,
> 
> As the conversation about HTTP responses evolves, I am inclined to
> believe that most still believe that:
> 
> 1. URL is equivalent to a URI
> 2. URI is a fancier term for URI
> 3. URI is equivalent to URL.
> 
> I think my opinion on this matter is clear, but I am very interested
> in the views of anyone that don't agree with the following:
> 
> 1. URI is an abstraction for Identifiers that work at InterWeb scale
> 2. A URI can serve as a Name
> 3. A URI can serve as an Address
> 4. A Name != Address
> 5. We locate Data at Addresses
> 6. Names can be used to provide indirection to Addresses i.e., Names
> can Resolve to Data.

Why would this be a matter of opinion? :) 

After all RFC3986 et al are Standards Track and have quite clear
statements on what Identifier connotes in the context of URI.
Such as:

"""
Identifier 

  An identifier embodies the information required to distinguish
  what is being identified from all other things within its scope of
  identification.  Our use of the terms "identify" and "identifying"
  refer to this purpose of distinguishing one resource from all
  other resources, regardless of how that purpose is accomplished
  (e.g., by name, address, or context).  These terms should not be
  mistaken as an assumption that an identifier defines or embodies
  the identity of what is referenced, though that may be the case
  for some identifiers.  Nor should it be assumed that a system
  using URIs will access the resource identified: in many cases,
  URIs are used to denote resources without any intention that they
  be accessed.
"""

Dave