CORS question (was Re: Proposal to assess the quality of Linked Data sources)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sorry for changing the topic (and, indeed, sailing off list topic). On 24/02/11 18:28, Melvin Carvalho wrote: http://www.w3.org/wiki/CORS_Enabled [reproduced for convenience] ... To give Javascript clients basic access to your resources requires adding one HTTP Response Header, namely: Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * I tried this recently and it didn't work on either Safari or Chrome (iirc) without adding: Access-Control-Allow-Methods: GET Has anyone else had this issue? Damian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1nkNcACgkQAyLCB+mTtynQ4QCfWNSN8IshBfr6ot6XqiO3dxGj g9UAoLuVH34Pr0aiIyl5HT3RP+Fvo0dZ =kTBf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
4th Australian Metadata Conference - 2011 - Call for Presentations and Case Studies
Hi all For the interest of Australian list members (and others) - Call for Presentations and Case Studies at Meta 2011 - Business Realities and Implications. I'll only post this call twice (once more towards the end date for submissions as a reminder) so please don't consider it spam. Don't let the name fool you - realistically we're after presentations and case studies on any real and practical metadata implementations, especially in the Gov space but with an eye for the commercial market too (LOD and SemWeb guys - I'm looking at you here ;) ). Even a group offering from the W3 community would be awesome, and IG hat on for a second, a great way to push some EO as always. If you've got something to share, or a great project you'd like to showcase, let us know! I have every faith that the W3 e-Gov, LOD and SemWeb IG and WG crowds will come through with some great offerings. And we don't mind if you are international - we'll be able to post case studies online, and will have a tweet-up and live blog happening as well - anything to spread the sweet eGov open data and web 3.0 word. Please pass on to any you may think would be intersted! Happy to answer any questions off list, or point you to the right people to talk to. Cheers Chris. *_ Call for Presentations and Case Studies - Meta 2011 - Business Realities and Implications_* The fourth Australian conference on Metadata Management (hosted by the Institute of Metadata Management), themed Business Realities and Implications, will be held in Canberra in May 2011. *About the Institute* The IMM offers both individuals and organisations the opportunity to participate in the development of metadata as a profession and to be at the leading edge of its utilisation as a core component of information management and business intelligence within the digital age. (Link to http://www.metalounge.org/meta-2011-conference_presentations) *About the Conference* Event Aim: To provide a forum for the discussion of crucial issues affecting our ability to manage information in the current complex market. The Audience: Managers and practitioners in a range of different execution and decision making environments looking for the opportunity to find solutions to real world problems faced daily. Key Outcomes: Delegates will leave with practical solutions, key contacts and a head full of ideas. Previous Conference References: www.metalounge.org http://www.metalounge.org (previously metadata Australia 2010) *The Key Themes* . Business Intelligence Analytics - Achieving a joint position and understanding of metadata . Technology Solutions, Data Integration and Hands-on Workshops . Management, Governance and Stewardship - including Professional Capability Development . Overcoming obstacles in the Execution process - challenges and solutions Who Should Attend . Senior managers responsible for knowledge, records and information management . Policy and technical metadata and data practitioners . Researchers in information and metadata management . Students from all disciplines related to information and communications management Key Dates: . Wednesday 25th May -- current practices and experiences . Thursday 26th May -- emerging promises and issues . Friday 27th May -- practical sessions on the technology and research Benefits of Attending and Presenting . Networking with like minded practioners and thought leaders . Exposure to emerging ideas and leading research . Practical learning and evidence of successes for faster, cost effective implementation . Next generation data and information management trends . Membership to IMM Presentations and Case Studies will be considered which include: . the application of metadata within information and knowledge management . innovative solutions and ideas around metadata management issues . practical solutions around applying metadata within the organisational context . utilising metadata to enhance access and usability . evidence of success and failure with lessons learned in implementation We would ask that the following information be provided so that we can contextualise these: . Name of Organisation . Type of Industry . Particular Solution . Line of Business Affected . Location of Client . Specific Business Challenge . Overview of Approach . Benefits of the Application . Future opportunities and next steps Submission guidelines: . Proposals must be submitted to i...@digitalbrand.org mailto:i...@digitalbrand.org by 19th March, 2011 . Include a one paragraph description for use in the conference program guide . Include a one paragraph describing the presenter's background, credentials and experience . Presentations will be limited to 30 minutes . Presenters will be required to sign a Speaker's Deed of Consent and Release to make slides and handouts available on CD and/or the conference
Deadline Extension (March 4): Semantic Publication Workshop SePublica@ESWC (May 30, Crete, Greece)
1st International Workshop on Semantic Publication (SePublica 2011) http://sepublica.mywikipaper.org at the 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2011) http://www.eswc2011.org May 30th, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece Keynote by Steve Pettifer, Manchester University, UK. “Utopia Documents and The Semantic Biochemical Journal experiment” SUBMISSION DEADLINE March 4 (extended) ELSEVIER BEST SEMANTIC PAPER AWARD The Best Paper Award is presented to the author(s) deemed to have written the paper covering the most innovative and feasible proposal concerning semantic publishing in the workshop. All submissions to the SePublica workshop will be considered, and a panel of experts will rate the papers according to originality of the idea, feasibility and presentation. The Best Paper award is sponsored by Elsevier as an incentive for researchers working on defining the next generation of scientific publishing concepts. The Best Paper Award will be handed out at the end of the SePublica workshop. • As a cash prize, the Best Paper Award will receive: US$ 750 • The runner-up will be awarded a prize of US$ 250. The MISSION of the SePublica workshop is to bring together researchers and practitioners dealing with different aspects of Semantic Technologies in the Publishing Industry. How is the Semantic Web impacting the publishing industry? How is our experience of publications changing because of Semantic Web technologies being applied to the publishing industry? The CHALLENGE of the Semantic Web is to allow the Web to move from a dissemination platform to an interactive platform for networked information. The Semantic Web promises to “fundamentally change our experience of the Web”. In spite of improvements in the distribution, accessibility and retrieval of information, little has changed in the publishing industry so far. The Web has succeeded as a dissemination platform for scientific and non-scientific papers, news, and communication in general; however, most of that information remains locked up in discrete documents, which are poorly interconnected to one another and to the Web. The connectivity tissues provided by RDF technology and the Social Web have barely made an impact on scientific communication nor on ebook publishing, neither on the format of publications, nor on repositories and digital libraries. The worst problem is in accessing and reusing the computable data which the literature represents and describes. • Consider research publications: Data sets and code are essential elements of data intensive research, but these are absent when the research is recorded and preserved in perpetuity by way of a scholarly journal article. • Or consider news reports: Governments increasingly make public sector information available on the Web, and reporters use it, but news reports very rarely contain fine-grained links to such data sources. QUESTIONS AND TOPICS OF INTEREST • What does a network of truly interconnected papers look like? How could interoperability across documents be enabled? • How could concept-centric social networks emerge? • Are blogs and wikis new means for scholarly communication? • What lessons can be learned from humanities and social science publishers (i.e. going beyond scientific publishing towards scholarly publishing)? • How could we move beyond the PDF? How can we embed and link semantics in EPUB and other e-book formats? • How are digital libraries related to semantic e-science? What is the relationship between a paper and its digital library? • How could we realize a paper with an API? How could we have a paper as a database, as a knowledge base? • How is the paper an interface, gateway, to the web of data? How could such and interface be delivered in a contextual manner? • How could RDF(a) and ontologies be used to represent the knowledge encoded in scientific documents and in general-interest media publications? • What ontologies do we need for representing structural elements in a document? • How can we capture the semantics of rhetorical structures in scholarly communication, and of hypotheses and scientific evidence? AUDIENCE • researchers from diverse backgrounds such as argumentative structures, scholarly communication, multi-modality in publications, digital libraries, semantics in publications, and ontology engineers. • practitioners active in the publishing industry, repositories of experimental information and document standards. IMPORTANT DATES Paper/Demo Submission Deadline (extended): Friday March 4, 23:59 Hawaii Time Acceptance Notification: April 1 Camera Ready Version: April 15 SePublica Workshop: May 30 SUBMISSION AND PROCEEDINGS Research papers are limited to 12 pages and position papers to 5 pages. For system descriptions, a 5 page paper should be submitted. All papers and system descriptions should be formatted according to the LNCS format http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs?SGWID=0-164-6-793341-0 We encourage the submission of semantic
Re: CORS question (was Re: Proposal to assess the quality of Linked Data sources)
I tried this recently and it didn't work on either Safari or Chrome (iirc) without adding: Access-Control-Allow-Methods: GET Has anyone else had this issue? Hmmm. Unsure, but at least the script I wrote for [1] doesn't seem to require it and I *think* works fine. Would be glad to learn if this is not the case and adapt it respectively. Cheers, Michael [1] http://enable-cors.org/#check -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html On 25 Feb 2011, at 12:22, Damian Steer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sorry for changing the topic (and, indeed, sailing off list topic). On 24/02/11 18:28, Melvin Carvalho wrote: http://www.w3.org/wiki/CORS_Enabled [reproduced for convenience] ... To give Javascript clients basic access to your resources requires adding one HTTP Response Header, namely: Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * I tried this recently and it didn't work on either Safari or Chrome (iirc) without adding: Access-Control-Allow-Methods: GET Has anyone else had this issue? Damian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1nkNcACgkQAyLCB+mTtynQ4QCfWNSN8IshBfr6ot6XqiO3dxGj g9UAoLuVH34Pr0aiIyl5HT3RP+Fvo0dZ =kTBf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: CORS question (was Re: Proposal to assess the quality of Linked Data sources)
On 25 Feb 2011, at 19:25, Michael Hausenblas wrote: I tried this recently and it didn't work on either Safari or Chrome (iirc) without adding: Access-Control-Allow-Methods: GET Has anyone else had this issue? Hmmm. Unsure, but at least the script I wrote for [1] doesn't seem to require it and I *think* works fine. Would be glad to learn if this is not the case and adapt it respectively. Cheers, Michael Thanks Michael, The jquery autocomplete library seemed to trigger the problem. Goodness knows what it was up to. Damian
Re: CORS question (was Re: Proposal to assess the quality of Linked Data sources)
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Damian Steer d.st...@bristol.ac.uk wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sorry for changing the topic (and, indeed, sailing off list topic). On 24/02/11 18:28, Melvin Carvalho wrote: http://www.w3.org/wiki/CORS_Enabled [reproduced for convenience] ... To give Javascript clients basic access to your resources requires adding one HTTP Response Header, namely: Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * I tried this recently and it didn't work on either Safari or Chrome (iirc) without adding: Access-Control-Allow-Methods: GET Has anyone else had this issue? Nope, plain old Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * worked for me this week on chrome-stable (9.0.597.98). Mark.
Re: Proposal to assess the quality of Linked Data sources
Hi Bob, thanks for your comments! Am 24.02.2011 20:47, schrieb Bob Ferris: Hi Annika, this is quite interesting. Well done! Here are my remarks: - no rede finition of existing vocabularies - sometimes it necessary e.g., to achieve an OWL DL compiliance of an utilized vocabulary that doesn't fulfil this requirement originally Oh ok, I didn't know that, thanks! - any reason for being sometimes quite strict re. the selected relations for specific indicators (e.g. 4.1) i.e., SIOC is for online communities and hence rather specific for that domain First, I wanted to leave things like the interpretation of an established vocabulary open to the reader. But as it is a diploma thesis, I was asked to make clear definitions for the indicators which wouldn't leave much room for interpretation. - stating the content-types as speci fically as possible is quite vague ;) and what are you intending with 'content-types'? media types? Yes, media types, which are stated in an HTTP-answer in the Content-Type-header. I took this indicator from the Weaving the Pedantic Web paper, which includes the example of stating the Content-Type of an RDF/XML-document as 'application/xml', although the actual type would be 'application/rdf+xml'. - A vocabulary is said to be established, if it is one of the 100 most popular vocabularies stated on pre x.cc - uhm, as the results from Richard's evaluation have, this is quite arguable It's a practical way to determine it (which I can use for the implementation of the formalism). Another way would be to compare many documents from many data sources and to find out, which vocabularies are most popular. - re. rdfs:label/rdfs:comment vs. dc:title/dc:description, AFAIK, it is a common practice to use the former one for universal definitions and the latter one for particular definitions I must admit, I forgot about these two. I'll add them! That's all for the moment ;) Cheers, Bob Thanks again! Cheers, Annika
Re: Proposal to assess the quality of Linked Data sources
Hi Annika - A vocabulary is said to be established, if it is one of the 100 most popular vocabularies stated on pre x.cc - uhm, as the results from Richard's evaluation have, this is quite arguable It's a practical way to determine it (which I can use for the implementation of the formalism). Another way would be to compare many documents from many data sources and to find out, which vocabularies are most popular. I'm particularly interested in this aspect of vocabulary selection. Regarding popularity, I fully go along with Bob regarding prefix.cc in which all sorts of biases can be introduced. I think the popularity is better measured by the use of vocabularies in CKAN datasets, as indicated by format-* tags. See http://ckan.net/tag/?page=F and for example http://ckan.net/tag/format-bibo or http://ckan.net/tag/format-foaf. Another approach I'm currently working on is the one you can find at http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov. The description of interlinked vocabularies (using VOAF vocabulary) provide indication of popularity at the vocabulary level itself. From this dataset (still far from exhaustive of course) you can see which vocabularies are reused, extended, used for annotation by other ones. I think the density of links to and from a vocabulary to other ones gives a good indicator of its establishment, in combination with the number of datasets actually using it. Best Bernard -- Bernard Vatant Senior Consultant Vocabulary Data Engineering Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com Mondeca 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web:http://www.mondeca.com Blog:http://mondeca.wordpress.com
Re: Proposal to assess the quality of Linked Data sources
Hi Annika - A vocabulary is said to be established, if it is one of the 100 most popular vocabularies stated on pre x.cc - uhm, as the results from Richard's evaluation have, this is quite arguable It's a practical way to determine it (which I can use for the implementation of the formalism). Another way would be to compare many documents from many data sources and to find out, which vocabularies are most popular. I'm particularly interested in this aspect of vocabulary selection. Regarding popularity, I fully go along with Bob regarding prefix.cc in which all sorts of biases can be introduced. I think the popularity is better measured by the use of vocabularies in CKAN datasets, as indicated by format-* tags. See http://ckan.net/tag/?page=F and for example http://ckan.net/tag/format-bibo or http://ckan.net/tag/format-foaf. Why not actual link coefficient from an LOD Cloud cache instance ? That a least shows what's being used :-) Kingsley Another approach I'm currently working on is the one you can find at http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov. The description of interlinked vocabularies (using VOAF vocabulary) provide indication of popularity at the vocabulary level itself. From this dataset (still far from exhaustive of course) you can see which vocabularies are reused, extended, used for annotation by other ones. I think the density of links to and from a vocabulary to other ones gives a good indicator of its establishment, in combination with the number of datasets actually using it. Best Bernard -- Bernard Vatant Senior Consultant Vocabulary Data Engineering Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com mailto:bernard.vat...@mondeca.com Mondeca 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web: http://www.mondeca.com Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Re: Proposal to assess the quality of Linked Data sources
Hi Annika, Am 25.02.2011 23:19, schrieb Annika Flemming: - no rede finition of existing vocabularies - sometimes it necessary e.g., to achieve an OWL DL compiliance of an utilized vocabulary that doesn't fulfil this requirement originally Oh ok, I didn't know that, thanks! See e.g. a related discussion on SemanticOverflow [1] - any reason for being sometimes quite strict re. the selected relations for specific indicators (e.g. 4.1) i.e., SIOC is for online communities and hence rather specific for that domain First, I wanted to leave things like the interpretation of an established vocabulary open to the reader. But as it is a diploma thesis, I was asked to make clear definitions for the indicators which wouldn't leave much room for interpretation. Okay. Then it might be good to propose recommendations as you already did it for some issues. Cheers, Bob [1] http://www.semanticoverflow.com/questions/1105/owl-dl-compliance-why-redefining-existing-concepts-propeties-in-own-ontology
Re: Proposal to assess the quality of Linked Data sources
On 25 Feb 2011, at 23:00, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Hi Annika - A vocabulary is said to be established, if it is one of the 100 most popular vocabularies stated on pre x.cc - uhm, as the results from Richard's evaluation have, this is quite arguable It's a practical way to determine it (which I can use for the implementation of the formalism). Another way would be to compare many documents from many data sources and to find out, which vocabularies are most popular. I'm particularly interested in this aspect of vocabulary selection. Regarding popularity, I fully go along with Bob regarding prefix.cc in which all sorts of biases can be introduced. I think the popularity is better measured by the use of vocabularies in CKAN datasets, as indicated by format-* tags. See http://ckan.net/tag/?page=F and for example http://ckan.net/tag/format-bibo or http://ckan.net/tag/format-foaf. Why not actual link coefficient from an LOD Cloud cache instance ? That a least shows what's being used :-) There is no LOD Cloud cache instance as far as I can tell. So any attempt to infer data from something that claimed to be would be misleading. Cheers Hugh Kingsley Another approach I'm currently working on is the one you can find at http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov. The description of interlinked vocabularies (using VOAF vocabulary) provide indication of popularity at the vocabulary level itself. From this dataset (still far from exhaustive of course) you can see which vocabularies are reused, extended, used for annotation by other ones. I think the density of links to and from a vocabulary to other ones gives a good indicator of its establishment, in combination with the number of datasets actually using it. Best Bernard -- Bernard Vatant Senior Consultant Vocabulary Data Engineering Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com Mondeca 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web:http://www.mondeca.com Blog:http://mondeca.wordpress.com -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen -- Hugh Glaser, Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ Work: +44 23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 23 8059 3045 Mobile: +44 78 9422 3822, Home: +44 23 8061 5652 http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~hg/
Re: 4th Australian Metadata Conference - 2011 - Call for Presentations and Case Studies
How about Governance Realities, Chris ? I don't think we ever came to a
consensus about the differences between metadata in the Public Domain (versus
the Private Sector).
I am making some progress on the empirical identification of {metadata stuff}
though ...
http://www.rustprivacy.org/2011/phase/
--Gannon
--- On Fri, 2/25/11, Chris Beer ch...@e-beer.net.au wrote:
From: Chris Beer ch...@e-beer.net.au
Subject: 4th Australian Metadata Conference - 2011 - Call for Presentations
and Case Studies
To: public-lod@w3.org, W3C e-Gov IG public-egov...@w3.org
Date: Friday, February 25, 2011, 5:53 AM
Hi all
For the interest of Australian list members (and others) - Call
for Presentations and Case Studies at Meta 2011 - Business
Realities and Implications. I'll only post this call twice (once
more towards the end date for submissions as a reminder) so please
don't consider it spam.
Don't let the name fool you - realistically we're after
presentations and case studies on any real and practical metadata
implementations, especially in the Gov space but with an eye for
the commercial market too (LOD and SemWeb guys - I'm looking at
you here ;) ). Even a group offering from the W3 community would
be awesome, and IG hat on for a second, a great way to push some
EO as always.
If you've got something to share, or a great project you'd like to
showcase, let us know! I have every faith that the W3 e-Gov, LOD
and SemWeb IG and WG crowds will come through with some great
offerings. And we don't mind if you are international - we'll be
able to post case studies online, and will have a tweet-up and
live blog happening as well - anything to spread the sweet eGov
open data and web 3.0 word.
Please pass on to any you may think would be intersted!
Happy to answer any questions off list, or point you to the right
people to talk to.
Cheers
Chris.
Call for Presentations and Case Studies - Meta 2011 -
Business Realities and Implications
The fourth Australian conference on Metadata Management (hosted
by the Institute of Metadata Management), themed Business Realities and
Implications, will be held in Canberra in May 2011.
About the Institute
The IMM offers both individuals and organisations the opportunity
to participate in the development of metadata as a profession
and to be at the leading edge of its utilisation as a core
component of information management and business intelligence
within the digital age. (Link
to http://www.metalounge.org/meta-2011-conference_presentations)
About the Conference
Event Aim: To provide a forum for the discussion of crucial
issues affecting our ability to manage information in the current
complex market.
The Audience: Managers and practitioners in a range of different
execution and decision making environments looking for
the opportunity to find solutions to real world problems faced
daily.
Key Outcomes: Delegates will leave with practical solutions, key
contacts and a head full of ideas.
Previous Conference References: www.metalounge.org (previously
metadata Australia 2010)
The Key Themes
•
Business Intelligence Analytics - Achieving a joint
position and understanding of metadata
•
Technology Solutions, Data Integration and Hands-on Workshops
•
Management, Governance and Stewardship - including Professional
Capability Development
•
Overcoming obstacles in the Execution process - challenges and
solutions
Who Should Attend
•
Senior managers responsible for knowledge, records and
information management
•
Policy and technical metadata and data practitioners
•
Researchers in information and metadata management
•
Students from all disciplines related to information and
communications management
Key Dates:
•
Wednesday 25th May – current practices and experiences
•
Thursday 26th May – emerging promises and issues
•
Friday 27th May – practical sessions on the technology and
research
Benefits of Attending and Presenting
•
Networking with like minded practioners and thought leaders
•
Exposure to emerging ideas and leading research
•
Practical learning and
Re: Proposal to assess the quality of Linked Data sources
On 25 Feb 2011, at 23:00, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Hi Annika - A vocabulary is said to be established, if it is one of the 100 most popular vocabularies stated on pre x.cc - uhm, as the results from Richard's evaluation have, this is quite arguable It's a practical way to determine it (which I can use for the implementation of the formalism). Another way would be to compare many documents from many data sources and to find out, which vocabularies are most popular. I'm particularly interested in this aspect of vocabulary selection. Regarding popularity, I fully go along with Bob regarding prefix.cc in which all sorts of biases can be introduced. I think the popularity is better measured by the use of vocabularies in CKAN datasets, as indicated by format-* tags. See http://ckan.net/tag/?page=F and for example http://ckan.net/tag/format-bibo or http://ckan.net/tag/format-foaf. Why not actual link coefficient from an LOD Cloud cache instance ? That a least shows what's being used :-) There is no LOD Cloud cache instance as far as I can tell. Okay, you might not see it as a LOD Cloud cache. How about a massive 13B strong live instance [1] with as much Linked Data as we can get our hands on? There good sampling there since you can use Entity Ranking to analyze usage. So any attempt to infer data from something that claimed to be would be misleading. No in my eyes, but we can agree to disagree as we've done in the past re. this matter :-) Links: 1. http://lod.openlinksw.com Kingsley Cheers Hugh Kingsley Another approach I'm currently working on is the one you can find at http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov. The description of interlinked vocabularies (using VOAF vocabulary) provide indication of popularity at the vocabulary level itself. From this dataset (still far from exhaustive of course) you can see which vocabularies are reused, extended, used for annotation by other ones. I think the density of links to and from a vocabulary to other ones gives a good indicator of its establishment, in combination with the number of datasets actually using it. Best Bernard -- Bernard Vatant Senior Consultant Vocabulary Data Engineering Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com Mondeca 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web:http://www.mondeca.com Blog:http://mondeca.wordpress.com -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
