CFP: SemStats 2013 @ ISWC 2013 --deadline 12 July
[[Apologies for cross-posting]] = First International Workshop on Semantic Statistics (SemStats 2013) Full-Day Workshop in conjunction with ISWC 2013, the 12th International Semantic Web Conference 21-25 October 2013, in Sydney, Australia Workshop Web Site: http://www.datalift.org/en/event/semstats2013 EasyChair: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=semstats2013 E-mail address: semstats2...@easychair.org Twitter Hashtag: #semstats2013 *Important Dates* - Deadline for paper submission: Friday, 12 July 2013, 23:59 (Hawaii time) - Notification of acceptance/rejection: Friday, 9 August 2013 - Deadline for camera-ready version: Friday, 30 August 2013 = *Workshop Summary* The goal of this workshop is to explore and strengthen the relationship between the Semantic Web and statistical communities, to provide better access to the data held by statistical offices. It will focus on ways in which statisticians can use Semantic Web technologies and standards in order to formalize, publish, document and link their data and metadata. The statistical community has recently shown an interest in the Semantic Web. In particular, initiatives have been launched to develop semantic vocabularies representing statistical classifications and discovery metadata. Tools are also being created by statistical organizations to support the publication of dimensional data conforming to the Data Cube specification, now in Last Call at W3C. But statisticians see challenges in the Semantic Web: how can data and concepts be linked in a statistically rigorous fashion? How can we avoid fuzzy semantics leading to wrong analyses? How can we preserve data confidentiality? The workshop will also cover the question of how to apply statistical methods or treatments to linked data, and how to develop new methods and tools for this purpose. Except for visualisation techniques and tools, this question is relatively unexplored, but the subject will obviously grow in importance in the near future. *Motivation* There is a growing interest regarding linked data and the Semantic Web in the statistical community. A large amount of statistical data from international and national agencies has already been published on the web of data, for example Census data from the U.S., Spain or France amongst others. In most cases, though, this publication is done by people exterior to the statistical office (see also http://datahub.io/dataset/istat-immigration, http://270a.info/ or http://eurostat.linked-statistics.org/), which raises issues such as long-term URI persistence, institutional commitment and data maintenance. Statistical organizations also possess an important corpus of structural metadata such as concept schemes, thesauri, code lists and classifications. Some of those are already available as linked data, generally in SKOS format (e.g. FAO's Agrovoc or UN's COFOG). Semantic web standards useful for the statisticians have now arrived at maturity. The best examples are the W3C Data Cube, DCAT and ADMS vocabularies. The statistical community is also working on the definition of more specialized vocabularies, especially under the umbrella of the DDI Alliance. For example, XKOS extends SKOS for the representation of statistical classifications, and Disco defines a vocabulary for data documentation and discovery; and the Visual Analytics Vocabulary is a first step towards semantic descriptions for user interface components developed to visualize Linked Statistical Data which can lead to increased linked data consumption and accessibility. We are now at the tipping point where the statistical and the Semantic Web communities have to formally exchange in order to share experiences and tools and think ahead regarding the upcoming challenges. The web of data will benefit in getting rich data published by professional and trustworthy data providers. It is also important that metadata maintained by statistical offices like concept schemes of economic or societal terms, statistical classifications, well-known codes, etc., are available as linked data, because they are of good quality, well-maintained, and they constitute a corpus to which a lot of other data can refer to. Statisticians have a long-going culture of data integrity, quality and documentation. They have developed industrialized data production and publication processes, and they care about data confidentiality and more generally how data can be used. It seems that after a period where the aim was to publish as many triples as possible, the focus of the Semantic Web community is now shifting to having a better quality of data and metadata, more coherent vocabularies (see the LOV initiative), good and documented naming patterns, etc. This workshop aims to contribute in these longer
Re: RDF, Linked Data etc : please ping me when it's over ...
+1 :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: Paul K. Courtney, MS Applications Specialist/Biomedical Informaticist Information Systems Dana-Farber Cancer Institute T: 617.582.7389 C: 603.727.8171 F: 617.632.4030 On 6/19/13 8:44 AM, Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.commailto:bernard.vat...@mondeca.com alleged: I guess I'm not the only one : I'm about to put a filter rule on my inbox from public-lod AND (contains RDF and Linked Data) = trash No one having a decent full-time job and normal life can have the bandwidth (not even speaking of the will or interest) to follow those threads. It's too bad because there is certainly a lot of amazing stuff I miss. So please ping me when it's over, and if someone can write a summary and possibly draw useful conclusions, please do so and post it on a stable URI where everything could be parsed in a single piece of document. Note : anyone willing to do that is both a saint and a fool :) Have fun Bernard Bernard Vatant Vocabularies Data Engineering Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59 Skype : bernard.vatant Blog : the wheel and the hubhttp://bvatant.blogspot.com Linked Open Vocabularies : lov.okfn.org http://lov.okfn.org Mondeca 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France www.mondeca.comhttp://www.mondeca.com/ Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanewshttp://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews -- Meet us during the European Open Data Weekhttp://opendataweek.org in Marseille (June 25-28) [http://opendataweek.org/wp-content/themes/opendataweek/img/header_fr.png] The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-mail.
2nd CfP: ISWC workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web (URSW'13)
--- CALL FOR PAPERS 9th International Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web http://c4i.gmu.edu/ursw/2013 In conjunction with the 12th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'13) Sydney, Australia October 21-22, 2013 --- ISWC is a major international forum for presenting visionary research on all aspects of the Semantic Web. The Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web workshop (URSW) at ISWC'13 is an exciting opportunity for collaboration and cross-fertilization between the uncertainty reasoning community and the Semantic Web / Linked Data community. Effective methods for reasoning under uncertainty are vital for realizing many aspects of the Semantic Web vision, but the ability of current-generation web technology to handle uncertainty remains extremely limited. Thus, there is a continuing demand for uncertainty reasoning technology among Semantic Web researchers and developers, and the URSW workshop creates a unique opening to bring together two communities with a clear commonality of interest but limited history of interaction. By capitalizing on this opportunity, URSW could spark dramatic progress toward realizing the Semantic Web vision. AUDIENCE The intended audience for this workshop includes the following: - Researchers in uncertainty reasoning technologies with interest in Semantic Web / Linked Data and Web-related technologies; - Semantic Web and Linked Data developers and researchers; - People in the knowledge representation community with interest in the Semantic Web / Linked Data. - Ontology researchers and ontological engineers; - Web services and cloud computing researchers and developers with interest in the Semantic Web / Linked Data. TOPIC LIST We intend to have an open discussion on any topic relevant to the general subject of uncertainty in the Semantic Web and Linked Data (including fuzzy theory, probability theory, and other approaches). Therefore, the following list should be just an initial guide: - Syntax and semantics for extensions to Semantic Web / Linked Data languages to enable representation of uncertainty; - Logical formalisms to support uncertainty in Semantic Web / Linked Data languages; - Probability theory as a means of assessing the likelihood that terms in different ontologies refer to the same or similar concepts; - Architectures for applying plausible reasoning to the problem of ontology mapping; - Using fuzzy approaches to deal with imprecise concepts within ontologies; - The concept of a probabilistic ontology and its relevance to the Semantic Web; - Best practices for representing uncertain, incomplete, ambiguous, or controversial information in the Semantic Web / Linked Data; - The role of uncertainty as it relates to web services and cloud computing; - Interface protocols with support for uncertainty as a means to improve interoperability among web services; - Uncertainty reasoning techniques applied to trust issues in the Semantic Web and Linked Data; - Existing implementations of uncertainty reasoning tools in the context of the Semantic Web and Linked Data; - Issues and techniques for integrating tools for representing and reasoning with uncertainty; - The future of uncertainty reasoning for the Semantic Web and Linked Data. IMPORTANT DATES July 10, 2013: Paper submissions due August 9: Paper acceptance notification August 31: Camera-ready papers due October 21-22: 9th Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web SUBMISSION DETAILS URSW is accepting submissions of technical papers and position papers. Each submission will be evaluated for acceptability by at least three members of the Program Committee. Decisions about acceptance will be based on relevance to the above topic list, originality, potential significance, topicality, and clarity. Since all accepted papers will be presented at the workshop, we require that at least one of the submitting authors must be a registered participant at the ISWC 2013 conference, and committed to attend the URSW workshop. Submissions to the workshop are only accepted in electronic format and should be sent via the workshop's submission site: https://www.easychair.org/account/signin.cgi?conf=ursw2013 Papers must be formatted in the style of the Springer Publications format for Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). This is the very same format adopted by the ISWC 2013. For complete details, see Springer's Author Instructions (http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs?SGWID=0-164-6-793341-0). Technical papers submitted to the URSW workshop must not exceed 12 pages, including figures and references. Submissions exceeding this limit will not be reviewed. Position papers consist of a summary of ideas, projects, or any research efforts that are relevant to the URSW Workshop and must not exceed 4 pages. Following the general
Linked Prolog
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:28:54 +, エリクソン トーレ t-eriks...@so.taisho.co.jp said: ex:distance ex:earth ex:moon 381550 25150 u:km. (Ab)using RDF I was able to (barely) document my semantics directly in turtle. Where is the semantics and syntax of your example described? Your data might be linked, but as a prospective consumer of it I'm feeling a bit lost :-) I just made it up. But not out of thin air. It's basically a prolog assertion with a turtle-esque surface syntax -- that's why the predicate comes first, so you can have arbitrary arity. The definitions of ex:distance (and ex:moon, ex:earth, u:km) could be obtained by dereferencing those URIs in the same way it's done with RDF. In fact it takes the two best ideas from RDF -- URIs as identifiers for real-world things, and the mechanism of dereferencing these URIs to get more information. Pace assertions about a normative meaning of Linked Data from the RDF WG (of which I am a member), I think these two ideas are the essence of Linked Data. I'm not seriously advocating this right now, it's just an example or thought experiment to answer your question and there's too much sunk investment in RDF for such a radical change. In fact if we were making radical changes, thinking about lambda expressions might be better than doing it this way. Maybe for RDF 3.0... -w
A practical way forward for Linked Data
On 19/06/2013 15:19, Dominic Oldman wrote: When Hugh talks about sharing a particular view I also think about the need to share particular objectives, and a particular vision, and match this with a practical way forward. When Hugh talks about widening of issues I think about how we are ever going to produce practical applications based on linked data principles, that operate over many different and varied datasets, and which are trusted and robust. It might be worth moving the conversation to think about practical use cases and reaching conclusions about what it would actually take to produce the solutions that are desperately needed, not to satisfy the people on this list (who all share an interest in making this work), but all the people who deserve to receive the benefits that linked data groups constantly promise but haven't yet delivered - but which are achievable. How does my sector create useful applications that operate across the extremely diverse and varied datasets that highly individual cultural heritage organisations produce but which together form a body of work that could revolutionise the way that we work, discover, collaborate and disseminate important information about our world and culture? Simply publishing 'linked data' in an random and uncoordinated way is not enough. Many (including subscribers to this list) are attempting to find a practical route forward and are working hard to create and demonstrate practical solutions (through practical end user applications using RDF and robust contextual standards) and, if necessary, will focus on better practical solutions - but based on firm and solid (theoretical integrity is important and the views of people on this list and others are therefore also very important) foundations. We do this also thinking hard about the type of infrastructure and support that we would also need to establish. Dominic, I think that your work at ResearchSpace [1] offers some important pointers as regards the direction of travel. Here we have a shared space into which cultural heritage resources can be loaded, with a strong suggestion that they should be structured according to the CIDOC CRM to allow cross-resource searching to deliver meaningful results. However, if we can agree on, and deploy, consistent design patterns for the use of frameworks such as the CRM for cultural heritage content, then it matters less whether everything is in one place. Any resources that are on the web can be spidered and indexed, especially if they publish a helpful ToC (e.g. VoID). I think two big challenges will be to get our stringy data converted to URLs, and for those URLs to be ones which are shared across the domain. Of these, the second challenge is probably the harder, since (as you have found at the BM) it is relatively straightforward to mint URLs in-house to represent a well-structured set of linked database keys. However, that just creates a self-referencing silo. Referencing an external resource involves a letting go, which might be at least as hard psychologically as the technical challenge. Also, we lack many of the resources we could and should share. Geography has been done (e.g. Geonames), but would benefit from an historical dimension. There is nothing for events. The (historical) human race is also pretty badly served, taken as a whole (unless you happen to be an artist, author or notable person). How do we conjure these shared resources into existence? Richard [1] http://www.researchspace.org/ -- *Richard Light*
Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF
On 6/19/13 6:44 PM, Damian Steer wrote: On 19 Jun 2013, at 23:25, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: To be more precise, Uh-huh. relative to basic Linked Data, inference and reasoning are distinguishing RDF features. s/RDF/Semantic web/ and you might well be right. If not, how would you distinguish Linked Data and RDF? I think that might be begging the question. Damian Damian, What makes the document denoted by URI/URL http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl uniquely RDF? That's the crux of the matter here. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: 返: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF
On 6/19/13 9:03 PM, エリクソン トーレ wrote: 差出人: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com] 送信日時: 2013年6月20日 6:37 On 6/19/13 3:41 PM, David Booth wrote: On 06/19/2013 02:29 AM, エリクソン トーレ wrote: My point was that even if the data producer doesn't know anything about RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows the RDF abstract syntax. That is the strength of RDF and why I think it is an intrinsic part of Linked Data. My simple point (which I will defend vigorously) is this: You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked Data in line with TimBL's original Linked Data meme. I agree on this point. That was a prerequisite of my statement above. You don't have to know English grammar to produce sentences in English. However, knowing the grammar will let you produce better, more understandable sentences. RDF is the grammar of linked data. My position has simply been that RDF is an implementation detail with regards to Linked Data. It adds useful and important value to Linked Data. As strange as this might sound, these lengthy threads are about this fundamental point which I know is defensible. RDF provides a grammar to Linked Data that's understood by RDF processors :-) Kingsley Tore * Please no comments pointing out errors in my English... -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF
On 6/19/13 10:47 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: My impression is that Kingsley is arguing that triples is triples. Concrete syntax is irrelevant, even if those triples are barely recognizable by naive agents. If that's what he's saying, I would agree. Converting barely recognizable triples into a standard form is a trivial process. Yes, that's my point. It's why I say that RDF didn't invent the Triple. I've posted a document denoted with the URI/URL http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl in defense of my claim :-) Kingsley Jeff From: David Booth Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:20:49 PM To: Young,Jeff (OR) Cc: Luca Matteis; Kingsley Idehen; Linked Data community Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF Hi Jeff, I guess I could have said *concrete*-syntax-independent to be more precise -- to distinguish it from the *abstract* syntax (or model) -- but serialization-independent works too. Or format-independent. David On 06/19/2013 09:55 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: David, I think you've confused syntax-independence with serialization-independence. RDF is syntax-dependent. The syntax is triples. OTOH, triple syntax can be serialized in a wide variety of ways. Jeff -Original Message- From: David Booth [mailto:da...@dbooth.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:42 PM To: Luca Matteis Cc: Kingsley Idehen; Linked Data community Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF Can you please then setup a pool asking Does creating and publishing Linked Data require knowledge of RDF? I would be willing to make such a poll if it seemed that people wanted it, but I don't think it is necessary. There are *many* document formats that can carry RDF, and it seems self-evident that someone who publishes an RDF-interpretable format like JSON-LD or (GRDDL-enabled) XML may not understand RDF **at all**. This is one of the great benefits of RDF being syntax independent. The JSON-LD group understood this very well and did a great job crafting the JSON-LD spec to ensure that web developers would *not* have to understand RDF in order to happily publish their JSON-LD. If the data is *interpretable* as RDF, then who cares whether the publisher understood RDF? It seems irrelevant to me. David -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Biomedical Question Answering Workshop CfP
Apologies for multiple postings. === BioASQ Workshop Website: http://www.bioasq.org/news/bioasq-workshop Project URL: http://www.bioasq.org/ Post-conference workshop after CLEF 2013, September 27, Valencia, Spain === *Scope* Every day, we generate 2.5 quintillion bytes of data. In domains such as bio-medicine, approximately 3000 new articles are published on the Web every day. This averages to more than 2 articles every minute. In addition to the sheer amount of information available on the Web, the variety of this information increases everyday and ranges for structured data in the form of ontologies to unstructured data in the form of documents. Staying on top of this huge amount of diverse data requires methods that allow detecting and integrating portions of datasets that satisfy the information need of given users from sources such as documents, ontologies, Linked Data sets, etc. Developing tools to achieve this bold goal requires combining techniques from several disciplines including Natural Language Processing (e.g., question answering, document summarization, ontology verbalization), Information Retrieval (e.g., document and passage retrieval), Machine Learning (e.g., large-scale hierarchical classification, clustering, etc.), Semantic Web/Linked Data (e.g., reasoning, link discovery) and Databases (e.g., storage and retrieval of triples, indexing, etc.). The aim of the BioASQ workshop is to bring experts from these domains together in order to push the research frontier towards hybrid information systems that will be able to deal with the whole diversity of the Web, especially for, but not restricted to the context of bio-medicine. During the workshop, the results of the open BioASQ challenge will also be presented. The topics of interest include (but are not restricted to): * Large-scale hierarchical text classification * Large-scale classification of documents onto ontology concepts (semantic indexing) * Classification of questions onto ontological concepts * Scalable approaches to document clustering * Text summarization, especially multi-document and query-focused summarization * Verbalization of structured information and related queries (RDF, OWL, SPARQL, etc.) * Question Answering over structured, semi-structured and unstructured data * Reasoning for information retrieval and question answering * Information retrieval over fragmented sources of information * Efficient indexing and storage structures for information retrieval * Delivery of the retrieved information in a concise and user-understandable form Papers are to be submitted in the LNCS format. We accept both short (max. 6 pages) and long submissions (max. 12 pages). All submissions must be carried out on EasyChair (https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=bioasq2013). The proceedings will be published at http://ceur-ws.org/. *Important dates*: Submission Deadline: August 15th, 2013 Notification of acceptance/rejection: August 31st, 2013 Camera-Ready Deadline: September 15th, 2013 Workshop: September 27th, 2013 *Organization* The BioASQ project, led by George Paliouras, NCSR “Demokritos”, Greece. -- Axel Ngonga, Dr. rer. nat Head of SIMBA/AKSW Augustusplatz 10 Room P616 04109 Leipzig Tel: +49 (0)341 9732341 Fax: +49 (0)341 9732239
Linked Data discussions require better communication
To be honest, this entire thread has reminded me of the lengthy threads on the ontolog listserv that finally caused me to unsubscribe. I could not characterize those threads as discussions because so many of the participants were actually talking past each other and were making assertions based on their particular perspective. And many of those threads involved discussants whose perspectives lived on entirely different levels of the subject matter: Ontology as a philosophy, ontology as a first order logic language and ontology as a way to share conceptual models a la Gruber[1]. These are not entirely disjoint domains, but one has to be very careful to ensure the discourse takes place across those levels and between the domains otherwise the purpose and focus of the discussion is lost. Seems the same was happening here. I gather that Kingsley was attempting to ensure that we don’t forget that the roots of RDF and triples goes way back to early work on E-R diagrams. Fine. And it seems others were frustrated because they didn’t want to lose the hard-won set of W3C specifications and standards that would enable Linked Data to be more than a theoretical exercise. Also good. But it wasn’t clear to me for a while what Kingsley’s intent was in his posts – some context would have been very helpful to me. It was only when I remembered that Virtuoso takes data from a very wide variety of sources that it occurred to me that Kingsley’s perspective involves looking for triples anywhere and everywhere regardless of the source format syntax. I could be wrong so I’m checking my assumptions up front here. Perhaps if this kind of thread starts up again: 1. Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. 2. Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject line just doesn’t always cut it. 3. Do more explication with the awareness that we might be talking about two (or more!) related but separate ideas/concepts. Or we could be using the same terms but with slightly different definitions. 4. Define the terms inline rather than just linking out. One’s interpretation of an external standard or specification could be different from someone else’s, so I think it would be good to own it. I learn so much from most of the discussions that do take place since I am still learning how the semantic web works – I get it on a conceptual level but I’m really interested in how to ground the conceptual model in a useful, usable form. I look forward to many other interesting threads. Paul Courtney [1] Gruber, Thomas R.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Gruber (June 1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specificationshttp://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993.pdf (PDF). Knowledge Acquisitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Acquisition 5 (2): 199–220. :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: Paul K. Courtney, MS Applications Specialist/Biomedical Informaticist Information Systems Dana-Farber Cancer Institute T: 617.582.7389 C: 603.727.8171 F: 617.632.4030 On 6/20/13 7:15 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.commailto:kide...@openlinksw.com alleged: On 6/19/13 10:47 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: My impression is that Kingsley is arguing that triples is triples. Concrete syntax is irrelevant, even if those triples are barely recognizable by naive agents. If that's what he's saying, I would agree. Converting barely recognizable triples into a standard form is a trivial process. Yes, that's my point. It's why I say that RDF didn't invent the Triple. I've posted a document denoted with the URI/URL http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl in defense of my claim :-) Kingsley Jeff From: David Booth Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:20:49 PM To: Young,Jeff (OR) Cc: Luca Matteis; Kingsley Idehen; Linked Data community Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF Hi Jeff, I guess I could have said *concrete*-syntax-independent to be more precise -- to distinguish it from the *abstract* syntax (or model) -- but serialization-independent works too. Or format-independent. David On 06/19/2013 09:55 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: David, I think you've confused syntax-independence with serialization-independence. RDF is syntax-dependent. The syntax is triples. OTOH, triple syntax can be serialized in a wide variety of ways. Jeff -Original Message- From: David Booth [mailto:da...@dbooth.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:42 PM To: Luca Matteis Cc: Kingsley Idehen; Linked Data community Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF Can you please then setup a pool asking Does creating and publishing Linked Data require knowledge of RDF? I would be willing to make such a poll if it seemed that people wanted it, but I don't think it is
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On 20 June 2013 15:37, Courtney, Paul K. paul_court...@dfci.harvard.eduwrote: To be honest, this entire thread has reminded me of the lengthy threads on the ontolog listserv that finally caused me to unsubscribe. I could not characterize those threads as discussions because so many of the participants were actually talking past each other and were making assertions based on their particular perspective. And many of those threads involved discussants whose perspectives lived on entirely different levels of the subject matter: Ontology as a philosophy, ontology as a first order logic language and ontology as a way to share conceptual models a la Gruber[1]. These are not entirely disjoint domains, but one has to be very careful to ensure the discourse takes place across those levels and between the domains otherwise the purpose and focus of the discussion is lost. Seems the same was happening here. I gather that Kingsley was attempting to ensure that we don’t forget that the roots of RDF and triples goes way back to early work on E-R diagrams. Fine. And it seems others were frustrated because they didn’t want to lose the hard-won set of W3C specifications and standards that would enable Linked Data to be more than a theoretical exercise. Also good. But it wasn’t clear to me for a while what Kingsley’s intent was in his posts – some context would have been very helpful to me. It was only when I remembered that Virtuoso takes data from a very wide variety of sources that it occurred to me that Kingsley’s perspective involves looking for triples anywhere and everywhere regardless of the source format syntax. I could be wrong so I’m checking my assumptions up front here. Perhaps if this kind of thread starts up again: 1. Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. 2. Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject line just doesn’t always cut it. 3. Do more explication with the awareness that we might be talking about two (or more!) related but separate ideas/concepts. Or we could be using the same terms but with slightly different definitions. 4. Define the terms inline rather than just linking out. One’s interpretation of an external standard or specification could be different from someone else’s, so I think it would be good to own it. +1 Though it's difficult to make blanket rules that would satisfy 1000+ members I'd recommend understand these two links thoroughly, as many of the questions that came up in the last few threads have been addressed http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html I learn so much from most of the discussions that do take place since I am still learning how the semantic web works – I get it on a conceptual level but I’m really interested in how to ground the conceptual model in a useful, usable form. I look forward to many other interesting threads. Paul Courtney [1] Gruber, Thomas R. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Gruber (June 1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specificationshttp://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993.pdf (PDF). *Knowledge Acquisitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Acquisition * *5* (2): 199–220. :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: ** ** Paul K. Courtney, MS Applications Specialist/Biomedical Informaticist Information Systems Dana-Farber Cancer Institute T: 617.582.7389 C: 603.727.8171 F: 617.632.4030 On 6/20/13 7:15 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com alleged: On 6/19/13 10:47 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: My impression is that Kingsley is arguing that triples is triples. Concrete syntax is irrelevant, even if those triples are barely recognizable by naive agents. If that's what he's saying, I would agree. Converting barely recognizable triples into a standard form is a trivial process. Yes, that's my point. It's why I say that RDF didn't invent the Triple. I've posted a document denoted with the URI/URL http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl in defense of my claim :-) Kingsley Jeff From: David Booth Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:20:49 PM To: Young,Jeff (OR) Cc: Luca Matteis; Kingsley Idehen; Linked Data community Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF Hi Jeff, I guess I could have said *concrete*-syntax-independent to be more precise -- to distinguish it from the *abstract* syntax (or model) -- but serialization-independent works too. Or format-independent. David On 06/19/2013 09:55 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: David, I think you've confused syntax-independence with serialization-independence. RDF is syntax-dependent. The syntax is triples.
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On 6/20/13 9:37 AM, Courtney, Paul K. wrote: Seems the same was happening here. I gather that Kingsley was attempting to ensure that we don’t forget that the roots of RDF and triples goes way back to early work on E-R diagrams. Yes. My fundamental point is that RDF has generated bad-will across many quarters due to problems with its marketing and technical narratives. Examples of problematic narratives include: 1. making it easy for people conclude (incorrectly) that RDF invented the triple 2. inferring that Linked Data (compatible with TimBL's original meme) can only be produced using RDF 3. distancing RDF from inference and reasoning -- *interpretation* and understanding (*sense*) are outcomes of inference and reasoning 4. inferring that Linked Data (compatible with TimBL's revised meme) infers it can only be produced using RDF while overlooking equal standing given to RDF and SPARQL in said revision 5. failure to acknowledge the important role of Entity Relationship Modeling and Entity Attribute Value + Classes Relationships (EAV/CR) re., RDF genealogy. As you can see, nothing good comes out of 1-4. Thus, I've always felt these matters could be straightened out via civil debate. Each time I try (and this isn't the first time) the response is the same, I get reactions from certain profiles of individuals that simply want to debate shutdown. Basically, they would like RDF to be devoid of constructive criticism (most of which boils to down to provincial narratives) because of strange fear that too many are already heavily invested in it etc.. Fine. And it seems others were frustrated because they didn’t want to lose the hard-won set of W3C specifications and standards that would enable Linked Data to be more than a theoretical exercise. Also good. But it wasn’t clear to me for a while what Kingsley’s intent was in his posts – some context would have been very helpful to me. I did provide context [1]. I am very conscious of the complexity of debates across any media (in person or online), so I do actually put a lot of effort into examples that are web-accessible [2]. I even visualize [3] when I sense prose (and inevitable typos) are getting in the way. It was only when I remembered that Virtuoso takes data from a very wide variety of sources that it occurred to me that Kingsley’s perspective involves looking for triples anywhere and everywhere regardless of the source format syntax. I could be wrong so I’m checking my assumptions up front here. You are spot on! We've been through the many trenches associated with data representation, access, integration, and management. In addition, I've have many debates across many forums (including ontlog [4]) about RDF. These debates (which might surprise some) aren't always about what I might think in wrong with RDF narratives, in many of these cases I am trying to avert the kinds of problems experienced with JSON-LD [5] and more than likely will revisit with LDP (Linked Data Platform) [6]. Perhaps if this kind of thread starts up again: 1. Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. 2. Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject line just doesn’t always cut it. 3. Do more explication with the awareness that we might be talking about two (or more!) related but separate ideas/concepts. Or we could be using the same terms but with slightly different definitions. 4. Define the terms inline rather than just linking out. One’s interpretation of an external standard or specification could be different from someone else’s, so I think it would be good to own it. I learn so much from most of the discussions that do take place since I am still learning how the semantic web works – I get it on a conceptual level but I’m really interested in how to ground the conceptual model in a useful, usable form. I look forward to many other interesting threads. On my part, I have no problem going the extra mile. I also believe (passionately) that open and civil debate is healthy. It only concerns me when I sense that others seemingly want to shut down debates while not addressing the concerns that underlie these debates. Thanks! Links: 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0119.html -- RDF's challenge (my initial post) . 2. http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl -- a document that demonstrates web-like construction of structured data using triples in a manner isn't uniquely RDF unless it invented the triple. 3. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- illustrating how Identifiers (e.g., URIs), Structured Data (e.g., Linked Data), and Predicate Logic (RDF) are related. 4. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2011-12/msg00060.html -- one of many Ontolog debates about RDF misconceptions arising
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.comwrote: Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject line just doesn’t always cut it. Again the subject line is the *definition* of the term Linked Data. More specifically whether it includes (or should include) RDF. Do more explication with the awareness that we might be talking about two (or more!) related but separate ideas/concepts. Or we could be using the same terms but with slightly different definitions. I want to concentrate on the current definition of the Linked Data term. Why do the main sites built from the Linked Data community *strictly* describe RDF as one of the main technologies that enable Linked Data? Define the terms inline rather than just linking out. One’s interpretation of an external standard or specification could be different from someone else’s, so I think it would be good to own it. I simply think RDF is part of Linked Data's definition, because of the evidence I have shown above. If this is not the case, we should discuss it as a community. If we decide that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data, we should probably remove it from all the top sites, otherwise it will create confusion for newcomers. Also we should make new Linked Data coffee mugs ;-) Luca
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On 6/20/13 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com mailto:melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: # Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. Here's what I am saying, again: 1. You can create and publish web-like structured data without any knowledge of RDF . 2. You can create and publish web-like data that's enhanced with human- and machine-comprehensible entity relationship semantics when you add RDF to the mix. Venn diagram based Illustration of my point: http://bit.ly/16EVFVG . If you want your Linked Data to be interpretable by machine, then you can achieve that goal via RDF based Linked Data and applications equipped with RDF processing capability. RDF entity relationship semantics are *explicit* whereas run-of-the-mill entity relationship model based entity relationship semantics are *implicit*. RDF is the W3C's recommended framework for increasing the semantic fidelity of relations that constitute the World Wide Web. It isn't really that complicated. RDF can be talked about usefully without inadvertently creating an eternally distracting Reality Distortion Field, laden with indefensible ambiguity. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
Kingsley, nothing you just said in reply to my statement has to do with the *definition* of Linked Data, which is what I was discussing. It's not really productive to quote people's statements, and answer with something entirely unrelated. I understand what RDF is and what it allows you to do (the two points you made), but going back to the definition, why do top sites mention specifically RDF when describing Linked Data? On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.comwrote: On 6/20/13 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. Here's what I am saying, again: 1. You can create and publish web-like structured data without any knowledge of RDF . 2. You can create and publish web-like data that's enhanced with human- and machine-comprehensible entity relationship semantics when you add RDF to the mix. Venn diagram based Illustration of my point: http://bit.ly/16EVFVG . If you want your Linked Data to be interpretable by machine, then you can achieve that goal via RDF based Linked Data and applications equipped with RDF processing capability. RDF entity relationship semantics are *explicit* whereas run-of-the-mill entity relationship model based entity relationship semantics are *implicit*. RDF is the W3C's recommended framework for increasing the semantic fidelity of relations that constitute the World Wide Web. It isn't really that complicated. RDF can be talked about usefully without inadvertently creating an eternally distracting Reality Distortion Field, laden with indefensible ambiguity. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
Hi, I agree with Luca's viewpoint. The W3C standard RDF model (a.k.a triple model) is one of most fundamental piece of the technology stack defining Linked Data (along with URIs and HTTP). I think it is important to make understand the community that Linked Data can be serialized into different representations (Turtle, RDF/XML, JSON-LD, N3, NTriples, TrigG, and any future formats) , as long as they are isomorphic to RDF model (meaning data can be converted to a set of triples and identifiers are based on URIs). If the data are NOT convertible to RDF model, I do not consider it as Linked Data. To make the system works, you need some set of standards on which everyone agree: HTTP, URIs, RDF are fundamental to Linked Data. Saying we do not need RDF model for Linked Data is like saying we do not need URL or HTTP for the web of documents. Sincerely Stephane Fellah On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject line just doesn’t always cut it. Again the subject line is the *definition* of the term Linked Data. More specifically whether it includes (or should include) RDF. Do more explication with the awareness that we might be talking about two (or more!) related but separate ideas/concepts. Or we could be using the same terms but with slightly different definitions. I want to concentrate on the current definition of the Linked Data term. Why do the main sites built from the Linked Data community *strictly* describe RDF as one of the main technologies that enable Linked Data? Define the terms inline rather than just linking out. One’s interpretation of an external standard or specification could be different from someone else’s, so I think it would be good to own it. I simply think RDF is part of Linked Data's definition, because of the evidence I have shown above. If this is not the case, we should discuss it as a community. If we decide that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data, we should probably remove it from all the top sites, otherwise it will create confusion for newcomers. Also we should make new Linked Data coffee mugs ;-) Luca
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
My 2c is .. i agree with kingsley diagram , linked data should be possible without RDF (no matter serialization) :) however this is different from previous definitions i think its a step forward.. but it is different from previously. Do we want to call it Linked Data 2.0? under this definition also schema.orgmarked up pages would be linked data .. and i agree plenty with this . Gio On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.comwrote: On 6/20/13 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. Here's what I am saying, again: 1. You can create and publish web-like structured data without any knowledge of RDF . 2. You can create and publish web-like data that's enhanced with human- and machine-comprehensible entity relationship semantics when you add RDF to the mix. Venn diagram based Illustration of my point: http://bit.ly/16EVFVG . If you want your Linked Data to be interpretable by machine, then you can achieve that goal via RDF based Linked Data and applications equipped with RDF processing capability. RDF entity relationship semantics are *explicit* whereas run-of-the-mill entity relationship model based entity relationship semantics are *implicit*. RDF is the W3C's recommended framework for increasing the semantic fidelity of relations that constitute the World Wide Web. It isn't really that complicated. RDF can be talked about usefully without inadvertently creating an eternally distracting Reality Distortion Field, laden with indefensible ambiguity. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: My 2c is .. i agree with kingsley diagram , linked data should be possible without RDF (no matter serialization) :) however this is different from previous definitions i think its a step forward.. but it is different from previously. Do we want to call it Linked Data 2.0? under this definition also schema.org marked up pages would be linked data .. and i agree plenty with this . So, I imagine, does everyone else. But are you implying that Schema markup is somehow incompatible with RDF? If so, try reading http://blog.schema.org/2012/06/semtech-rdfa-microdata-and-more.html Pat Gio On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: On 6/20/13 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: • Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. Here's what I am saying, again: 1. You can create and publish web-like structured data without any knowledge of RDF . 2. You can create and publish web-like data that's enhanced with human- and machine-comprehensible entity relationship semantics when you add RDF to the mix. Venn diagram based Illustration of my point: http://bit.ly/16EVFVG . If you want your Linked Data to be interpretable by machine, then you can achieve that goal via RDF based Linked Data and applications equipped with RDF processing capability. RDF entity relationship semantics are *explicit* whereas run-of-the-mill entity relationship model based entity relationship semantics are *implicit*. RDF is the W3C's recommended framework for increasing the semantic fidelity of relations that constitute the World Wide Web. It isn't really that complicated. RDF can be talked about usefully without inadvertently creating an eternally distracting Reality Distortion Field, laden with indefensible ambiguity. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola(850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
Not implying that, i'd hope RDF can represent all really but RDF would not be needed for linked data while an RDF description even alone lonely on the web could be called Linked Data (if it uses URIs) GIo On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: My 2c is .. i agree with kingsley diagram , linked data should be possible without RDF (no matter serialization) :) however this is different from previous definitions i think its a step forward.. but it is different from previously. Do we want to call it Linked Data 2.0? under this definition also schema.orgmarked up pages would be linked data .. and i agree plenty with this . So, I imagine, does everyone else. But are you implying that Schema markup is somehow incompatible with RDF? If so, try reading http://blog.schema.org/2012/06/semtech-rdfa-microdata-and-more.html Pat Gio On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: On 6/20/13 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: • Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. Here's what I am saying, again: 1. You can create and publish web-like structured data without any knowledge of RDF . 2. You can create and publish web-like data that's enhanced with human- and machine-comprehensible entity relationship semantics when you add RDF to the mix. Venn diagram based Illustration of my point: http://bit.ly/16EVFVG . If you want your Linked Data to be interpretable by machine, then you can achieve that goal via RDF based Linked Data and applications equipped with RDF processing capability. RDF entity relationship semantics are *explicit* whereas run-of-the-mill entity relationship model based entity relationship semantics are *implicit*. RDF is the W3C's recommended framework for increasing the semantic fidelity of relations that constitute the World Wide Web. It isn't really that complicated. RDF can be talked about usefully without inadvertently creating an eternally distracting Reality Distortion Field, laden with indefensible ambiguity. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola(850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On 6/20/13 12:50 PM, Stephane Fellah wrote: Hi, I agree with Luca's viewpoint. The W3C standard RDF model (a.k.a triple model) is one of most fundamental piece of the technology stack defining Linked Data (along with URIs and HTTP). I am not disputing that point. Here's what in dispute, and the topic of debate to me: the misconception that you MUST know anything about RDF en route to creating and publishing Linked Data. RDF is an optional implementation detail with a particular outcome in mind i.e., the ability for humans and machines to understand the entity relationship semantics that constitute the Linked Data. I think it is important to make understand the community that Linked Data can be serialized into different representations (Turtle, RDF/XML, JSON-LD, N3, NTriples, TrigG, and any future formats) , as long as they are isomorphic to RDF model (meaning data can be converted to a set of triples and identifiers are based on URIs). I really don't believe that I am disputing this point. Neither do I believe the point (above) is new to anyone on this list. If the data are NOT convertible to RDF model, I do not consider it as Linked Data. And that assertion is inaccurate. It is also indefensible. The World Wide Web as it already exists is full of Linked Data for which RDF processors may or may not exist. It functions, humans and programs understand the LinksTo relation etc.. That's why it works and scales the way it does. Guess what, even though the World Wide Web is dominated by HTML content, it was bootstrapped on the back of a draconian mandate that everything MUST be interpretable as HTML. Ironically, DBpedia most powerful deliverable was the use of HTML to expose the concept of Linked Data. We stuck RDF/XML and other formats in the footer pages of said documents. To make the system works, you need some set of standards on which everyone agree: HTTP, URIs, RDF are fundamental to Linked Data. URIs and web-liked structured data representation are fundamental to Linked Data. RDF is fundamental to Blogic. Saying we do not need RDF model for Linked Data is like saying we do not need URL or HTTP for the web of documents. Again, here is what I am saying: You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked Data. Please read my words, don't react to them. Kingsley Sincerely Stephane Fellah On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com mailto:lmatt...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com mailto:melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: # Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. # Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject line just doesn’t always cut it. Again the subject line is the *definition* of the term Linked Data. More specifically whether it includes (or should include) RDF. # Do more explication with the awareness that we might be talking about two (or more!) related but separate ideas/concepts. Or we could be using the same terms but with slightly different definitions. I want to concentrate on the current definition of the Linked Data term. Why do the main sites built from the Linked Data community *strictly* describe RDF as one of the main technologies that enable Linked Data? # Define the terms inline rather than just linking out. One’s interpretation of an external standard or specification could be different from someone else’s, so I think it would be good to own it. I simply think RDF is part of Linked Data's definition, because of the evidence I have shown above. If this is not the case, we should discuss it as a community. If we decide that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data, we should probably remove it from all the top sites, otherwise it will create confusion for newcomers. Also we should make new Linked Data coffee mugs ;-) Luca -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On 6/20/13 12:54 PM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: My 2c is .. i agree with kingsley diagram , linked data should be possible without RDF (no matter serialization) :) however this is different from previous definitions i think its a step forward.. but it is different from previously. Do we want to call it Linked Data 2.0? under this definition also schema.org http://schema.org marked up pages would be linked data .. and i agree plenty with this . We can reconcile my Venn back to: http://www.nic.funet.fi/index/FUNET/history/internet/w3c/Image1.gif . That diagram (original World Wide Web proposal) is an entity relationship graph. Every connection type is denoted albeit using literals due to the fact that URIs where a work-in-progress at that point or too distorting to insert into the high level proposal. describes, unifies, wrote, includes are literal denotations of different types of relations :-) Kingsley Gio On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: On 6/20/13 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com mailto:melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: # Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. Here's what I am saying, again: 1. You can create and publish web-like structured data without any knowledge of RDF . 2. You can create and publish web-like data that's enhanced with human- and machine-comprehensible entity relationship semantics when you add RDF to the mix. Venn diagram based Illustration of my point: http://bit.ly/16EVFVG . If you want your Linked Data to be interpretable by machine, then you can achieve that goal via RDF based Linked Data and applications equipped with RDF processing capability. RDF entity relationship semantics are *explicit* whereas run-of-the-mill entity relationship model based entity relationship semantics are *implicit*. RDF is the W3C's recommended framework for increasing the semantic fidelity of relations that constitute the World Wide Web. It isn't really that complicated. RDF can be talked about usefully without inadvertently creating an eternally distracting Reality Distortion Field, laden with indefensible ambiguity. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On 6/20/13 12:49 PM, Luca Matteis wrote: Kingsley, nothing you just said in reply to my statement has to do with the *definition* of Linked Data, which is what I was discussing. It's not really productive to quote people's statements, and answer with something entirely unrelated. I understand what RDF is and what it allows you to do (the two points you made), but going back to the definition, why do top sites mention specifically RDF when describing Linked Data? Because people talk about Linked Data and RDF together. That doesn't in imply that you MUST know RDF to create and publish Linked Data -- which remains my fundamental point. Google search results aren't a topic of interest or debate to me. I don't want to open up that can of worms. Kingsley On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: On 6/20/13 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com mailto:melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: # Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. Here's what I am saying, again: 1. You can create and publish web-like structured data without any knowledge of RDF . 2. You can create and publish web-like data that's enhanced with human- and machine-comprehensible entity relationship semantics when you add RDF to the mix. Venn diagram based Illustration of my point: http://bit.ly/16EVFVG . If you want your Linked Data to be interpretable by machine, then you can achieve that goal via RDF based Linked Data and applications equipped with RDF processing capability. RDF entity relationship semantics are *explicit* whereas run-of-the-mill entity relationship model based entity relationship semantics are *implicit*. RDF is the W3C's recommended framework for increasing the semantic fidelity of relations that constitute the World Wide Web. It isn't really that complicated. RDF can be talked about usefully without inadvertently creating an eternally distracting Reality Distortion Field, laden with indefensible ambiguity. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
Kingsley, long story short, what you mean when you say linked data is not exactly what most other people mean when they say those words. Your understanding of what they mean is much wider and more all-encompassing than the common meaning. Personally, I see what you are getting at and (I think) why you feel it is important, but I think the common, rather narrower, meaning is more useful in conversation, provided it is not used in a kind of not-invented-here way to exclude things from discussion or imply that they are not valid or proper. What is certainly not useful, however, is to keep on loudly disagreeing with people who mean something else. (Of course, that last sentence applies to several people on this thread.) Pat PS. To address your main topic of debate: maybe someone can be using RDF without knowing that they are using RDF. (Like Moliere's bourgous gentihomme.) WIth the rise of JSON-LD, I suspect that this will in fact be the most common situation. On Jun 20, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 6/20/13 12:50 PM, Stephane Fellah wrote: Hi, I agree with Luca's viewpoint. The W3C standard RDF model (a.k.a triple model) is one of most fundamental piece of the technology stack defining Linked Data (along with URIs and HTTP). I am not disputing that point. Here's what in dispute, and the topic of debate to me: the misconception that you MUST know anything about RDF en route to creating and publishing Linked Data. RDF is an optional implementation detail with a particular outcome in mind i.e., the ability for humans and machines to understand the entity relationship semantics that constitute the Linked Data. I think it is important to make understand the community that Linked Data can be serialized into different representations (Turtle, RDF/XML, JSON-LD, N3, NTriples, TrigG, and any future formats) , as long as they are isomorphic to RDF model (meaning data can be converted to a set of triples and identifiers are based on URIs). I really don't believe that I am disputing this point. Neither do I believe the point (above) is new to anyone on this list. If the data are NOT convertible to RDF model, I do not consider it as Linked Data. And that assertion is inaccurate. It is also indefensible. The World Wide Web as it already exists is full of Linked Data for which RDF processors may or may not exist. It functions, humans and programs understand the LinksTo relation etc.. That's why it works and scales the way it does. Guess what, even though the World Wide Web is dominated by HTML content, it was bootstrapped on the back of a draconian mandate that everything MUST be interpretable as HTML. Ironically, DBpedia most powerful deliverable was the use of HTML to expose the concept of Linked Data. We stuck RDF/XML and other formats in the footer pages of said documents. To make the system works, you need some set of standards on which everyone agree: HTTP, URIs, RDF are fundamental to Linked Data. URIs and web-liked structured data representation are fundamental to Linked Data. RDF is fundamental to Blogic. Saying we do not need RDF model for Linked Data is like saying we do not need URL or HTTP for the web of documents. Again, here is what I am saying: You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked Data. Please read my words, don't react to them. Kingsley Sincerely Stephane Fellah On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: • Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. • Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject line just doesn’t always cut it. Again the subject line is the *definition* of the term Linked Data. More specifically whether it includes (or should include) RDF. • Do more explication with the awareness that we might be talking about two (or more!) related but separate ideas/concepts. Or we could be using the same terms but with slightly different definitions. I want to concentrate on the current definition of the Linked Data term. Why do the main sites built
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: • Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: Much snipped... I'm going to quote from one of TimBL's pages, to which Luca and Melvin just pointed. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html Discussing 5-star Linked Open Data (2010 addition to this document created in 2006) -- ★Available on the web (whatever format) but with an open licence, to be Open Data ★★ Available as machine-readable structured data (e.g. excel instead of image scan of a table) ★★★ as (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV instead of excel) All the above plus, Use open standards from W3C (RDF and SPARQL) to identify things, so that people can point at your stuff ★ All the above, plus: Link your data to other people’s data to provide context Now... RDF doesn't come in until you get a 4-star rating. Are all you folks who are arguing that Linked Data *mandates* RDF suggesting that 1-, 2-, and 3-star rated Linked Open Data is *not* Linked Data? Because this rating scheme strongly suggests otherwise to me. In the same document, the 4 Steps that TimBL Spake -- 1. Use URIs as names for things 2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names. 3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the standards (RDF*, SPARQL) 4. Include links to other URIs. so that they can discover more things. In its *earliest* form (which regrettably was not captured by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine), the last phrase of #3 read using the standards. (I thought it said using the *relevant* standards, emphasis mine, but I'm not certain of that.) I am absolutely certain that it mentioned neither RDF nor SPARQL in specific. I don't remember whether HTTP was originally in #2, but I submit that *that* would be better changed to dereferenceable -- because I don't believe that HTTP is or should be The Answer For All Time, as much as it may have been the best at the time of writing, and may still be the best today. And again, I wonder, even given that Words From TimBL get such special treatment, why is *this* revision considered perfect, if his original writing was not? Be seeing you, Ted -- A: Yes. http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html | Q: Are you sure? | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? Ted Thibodeau, Jr. // voice +1-781-273-0900 x32 Senior Support Evangelism //mailto:tthibod...@openlinksw.com // http://twitter.com/TallTed OpenLink Software, Inc. // http://www.openlinksw.com/ 10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803 Weblog -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/ LinkedIn -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/ Twitter -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink Google+ -- http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/ Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[ANN] Public release of Glimmer RDF search engine and demo
(apologies for cross-posting) All, The Semantic Search research group at Yahoo! Labs is pleased to announce the open-source code release and public demo of Glimmer, a search engine for RDF data. Glimmer, the search engine [1] provides support for offline distributed indexing of RDF data using Hadoop MapReduce. It also contains an online ranking component using a state-of-the-art method based on BM25F, previously published as [2]. Both of these components are built on top of MG4J, a highly-scalable open-source search engine written entirely in Java [3]. Glimmer is available on Github under an Apache 2.0 license. The Glimmer demo [4] allows searching over 750m triples of data, the subset of the Web Data Commons [5] collection that uses the schema.org namespace. We choose to demonstrate Glimmer on this dataset because so far it has been only accessible as a static download. We hope that providing API access will make it easier to analyze the data (which previously required AWS payment) and to develop innovative applications. We plan to add more collections to the demo in the future. The demo makes it possible to search the data by keywords or by selecting a class from the taxonomy shown on the right. It is also possible to restrict matches to the values of particular predicates and combine such matches using the standard boolean operators. See [6] for more information. We welcome bug reports as well as feature suggestions for future release of Glimmer and the public demo [7]. Lastly, we would like to thank the help and support of Paolo Boldi and Sebastiano Vigna (University of Milano) as well as Yahoo's Open Source Working Group. Best regards, The SemSearch group @ Yahoo! Labs [1] https://github.com/yahoo/Glimmer [2] Roi Blanco, Peter Mika, Sebastiano Vigna: Effective and Efficient Entity Search in RDF Data. International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) 2011, pages 83-97. http://www.dc.fi.udc.es/~roi/publications/iswc2011.pdf [3] http://mg4j.dsi.unimi.it/ [4] http://glimmer.research.yahoo.com/ [5] http://www.webdatacommons.org/ [6] https://github.com/yahoo/Glimmer/wiki/Web-App-Help [7] https://github.com/yahoo/Glimmer/issues
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On 6/20/13 1:05 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: My 2c is .. i agree with kingsley diagram , linked data should be possible without RDF (no matter serialization) :) however this is different from previous definitions i think its a step forward.. but it is different from previously. Do we want to call it Linked Data 2.0? under this definition also schema.org marked up pages would be linked data .. and i agree plenty with this . So, I imagine, does everyone else. But are you implying that Schema markup is somehow incompatible with RDF? No, that isn't what Gio means. Schema.org is more compatible with RDF than it actually is with Linked Data. Anyway, you've just introduced another dimension to my fundamental point. The issue with schema.org is that it doesn't actually adhere to the critical Linked Data requirement that entities should be named unambiguously using URIs [1]. If so, try reading http://blog.schema.org/2012/06/semtech-rdfa-microdata-and-more.html It is more compatible with RDF than it is with Linked Data principles outlined in any of TimBL's LInked Data memes. Likewise, it doesn't match the deployment patterns demonstrated by DBpedia and the rest of the LOD cloud (RDF based Linked Data exemplars). In fact, schema.org and (until very recently) many RDF ontologies don't conform with the principles outlined in TimBL's memes. Now if what I claim is true, how can we (with a straight face) look anyone in the eye and claim that you can only produce Linked Data based on knowledge of RDF, when many that are knowledgeable in RDF don't even actually do that? Links: 1. http://bit.ly/196mG8S -- Vapor (Linked Data verification service) Report for a random Schema.org entity URI 2. http://schema.org/MusicAlbum -- Schema.org URI conflates the identity of a Music Album with the identity of the Document from which its sense is perceived. Kingsley Pat Gio On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: On 6/20/13 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: • Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. Here's what I am saying, again: 1. You can create and publish web-like structured data without any knowledge of RDF . 2. You can create and publish web-like data that's enhanced with human- and machine-comprehensible entity relationship semantics when you add RDF to the mix. Venn diagram based Illustration of my point: http://bit.ly/16EVFVG . If you want your Linked Data to be interpretable by machine, then you can achieve that goal via RDF based Linked Data and applications equipped with RDF processing capability. RDF entity relationship semantics are *explicit* whereas run-of-the-mill entity relationship model based entity relationship semantics are *implicit*. RDF is the W3C's recommended framework for increasing the semantic fidelity of relations that constitute the World Wide Web. It isn't really that complicated. RDF can be talked about usefully without inadvertently creating an eternally distracting Reality Distortion Field, laden with indefensible ambiguity. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola(850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
Kingsley, On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.comwrote: On 6/20/13 12:50 PM, Stephane Fellah wrote: Hi, I agree with Luca's viewpoint. The W3C standard RDF model (a.k.a triple model) is one of most fundamental piece of the technology stack defining Linked Data (along with URIs and HTTP). I am not disputing that point. Here's what in dispute, and the topic of debate to me: the misconception that you MUST know anything about RDF en route to creating and publishing Linked Data. RDF is an optional implementation detail with a particular outcome in mind i.e., the ability for humans and machines to understand the entity relationship semantics that constitute the Linked Data. Can you provide some examples to clarify your point here? Do you consider CSV files as Linked Data ? Do you consider RDBMS Tables ( using primary keys of the database as identifiers) as Linked data ? Do you consider XML documents using XPointer and XLink as Linked Data (like in Geographic Markup Language GML) ? Do you consider XML documents using local identifier xml:id as Linked Data ? I personally do not consider them as Linked Data because they do not adhere to the RDF model (meaning I cannot harvest them as a set of triples using URIs). If you disagree with my point, then we should have different terminologies to distinguish RDF compliant data versus the rest. I think it is important to make understand the community that Linked Data can be serialized into different representations (Turtle, RDF/XML, JSON-LD, N3, NTriples, TrigG, and any future formats) , as long as they are isomorphic to RDF model (meaning data can be converted to a set of triples and identifiers are based on URIs). I really don't believe that I am disputing this point. Neither do I believe the point (above) is new to anyone on this list. If the data are NOT convertible to RDF model, I do not consider it as Linked Data. And that assertion is inaccurate. It is also indefensible. The World Wide Web as it already exists is full of Linked Data for which RDF processors may or may not exist. It functions, humans and programs understand the LinksTo relation etc.. That's why it works and scales the way it does. That is where I differ with you: The World Wide Web as it already exists is full of Data, not Linked Data. To become Linked Data they need to be converted to RDF Model, meaning be compliant with triple model and uses URIs and HTTP to be linkable. CSV files, XML with local identifier files, Database tables are NOT linked data until they adhere to the Triple Model and uses URI for identification (thus being compliant with the RDF Model). Guess what, even though the World Wide Web is dominated by HTML content, it was bootstrapped on the back of a draconian mandate that everything MUST be interpretable as HTML. Ironically, DBpedia most powerful deliverable was the use of HTML to expose the concept of Linked Data. We stuck RDF/XML and other formats in the footer pages of said documents. To make the system works, you need some set of standards on which everyone agree: HTTP, URIs, RDF are fundamental to Linked Data. URIs and web-liked structured data representation are fundamental to Linked Data. RDF is fundamental to Blogic. RDF is fundamental to build the Global Linked Data Graph (Directed Labeled Graph model based on URIs). Inferencing, ontologies, SPARQL, BLogic, are just value-adds capabilities on top of Linked Data. You do not need BLogic for Linked Data. Saying we do not need RDF model for Linked Data is like saying we do not need URL or HTTP for the web of documents. Again, here is what I am saying: You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked Data. Please read my words, don't react to them. Based on my comments, I disagree with you on this point. Kingsley Sincerely Stephane Fellah Stephane On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF. - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject line just doesn’t always cut it. Again
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On 06/20/2013 12:54 PM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: My 2c is .. i agree with kingsley diagram , linked data should be possible without RDF (no matter serialization) :) however this is different from previous definitions Remember: if the data is not standards-based interpretable as RDF (though it doesn't have to *look* like RDF) then it does not support the goal of the Semantic Web, because it creates walled gardens, as explained in more detail here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013Jun/0120.html I prefer a definition of Linked Data that supports the goal of the Semantic Web. I would venture to guess that that was the entire reason that TimBL coined the term: to support the goals of the Semantic Web. David
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On 06/20/2013 12:50 PM, Stephane Fellah wrote: Hi, I agree with Luca's viewpoint. The W3C standard RDF model (a.k.a triple model) is one of most fundamental piece of the technology stack defining Linked Data (along with URIs and HTTP). I think it is important to make understand the community that Linked Data can be serialized into different representations (Turtle, RDF/XML, JSON-LD, N3, NTriples, TrigG, and any future formats) , as long as they are isomorphic to RDF model (meaning data can be converted to a set of triples and identifiers are based on URIs). If the data are NOT convertible to RDF model, I do not consider it as Linked Data. To make the system works, you need some set of standards on which everyone agree: HTTP, URIs, RDF are fundamental to Linked Data. Saying we do not need RDF model for Linked Data is like saying we do not need URL or HTTP for the web of documents. +1 Very well put. David Booth
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On 6/20/13 1:46 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: Kingsley, long story short, what you mean when you say linked data is not exactly what most other people mean when they say those words. Your understanding of what they mean is much wider and more all-encompassing than the common meaning. Personally, I see what you are getting at and (I think) why you feel it is important, but I think the common, rather narrower, meaning is more useful in conversation, provided it is not used in a kind of not-invented-here way to exclude things from discussion or imply that they are not valid or proper. Great point! My concern is that it is used in an not-invented-here (NIH) way. Even worse, it has become more of a mantra, you are either with RDF or against it! mindset. Being too narrow is also problematic, especially in this context [1]. Look at me, I am *persona non grata* to a certain profile on this list, just because I've sought to bring attention to a critical problem that dogs RDF [2]. This isn't the first time I have to deal with this sad state of affairs. I get the same reaction all the time whenever RDF concerns are raised, and unfortunately for these folks, I am wired to stand up for what I believe in, period! What is certainly not useful, however, is to keep on loudly disagreeing with people who mean something else. (Of course, that last sentence applies to several people on this thread.) Yes-ish, but I am going the extra mile to clarify misrepresentations of my positions, which I will never let lie. I won't let anyone misrepresent my views on a public forum. Pat PS. To address your main topic of debate: maybe someone can be using RDF without knowing that they are using RDF. (Like Moliere's bourgous gentihomme.) WIth the rise of JSON-LD, I suspect that this will in fact be the most common situation. Yes-ish. How about they end up using something that's compatible with RDF (model, abstract, and concrete syntaxes) such that when they need RDF's unique virtues it simply manifests as a pleasant surprise. That's my ultimate fantasy (which once used to be a dream) :-) Links: 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZrC4BilLI -- The issue with engineering and narrowness (spotter: Henry Story) . 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0119.html -- RDF's challenge (my initial post) . Kingsley On Jun 20, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 6/20/13 12:50 PM, Stephane Fellah wrote: Hi, I agree with Luca's viewpoint. The W3C standard RDF model (a.k.a triple model) is one of most fundamental piece of the technology stack defining Linked Data (along with URIs and HTTP). I am not disputing that point. Here's what in dispute, and the topic of debate to me: the misconception that you MUST know anything about RDF en route to creating and publishing Linked Data. RDF is an optional implementation detail with a particular outcome in mind i.e., the ability for humans and machines to understand the entity relationship semantics that constitute the Linked Data. I think it is important to make understand the community that Linked Data can be serialized into different representations (Turtle, RDF/XML, JSON-LD, N3, NTriples, TrigG, and any future formats) , as long as they are isomorphic to RDF model (meaning data can be converted to a set of triples and identifiers are based on URIs). I really don't believe that I am disputing this point. Neither do I believe the point (above) is new to anyone on this list. If the data are NOT convertible to RDF model, I do not consider it as Linked Data. And that assertion is inaccurate. It is also indefensible. The World Wide Web as it already exists is full of Linked Data for which RDF processors may or may not exist. It functions, humans and programs understand the LinksTo relation etc.. That's why it works and scales the way it does. Guess what, even though the World Wide Web is dominated by HTML content, it was bootstrapped on the back of a draconian mandate that everything MUST be interpretable as HTML. Ironically, DBpedia most powerful deliverable was the use of HTML to expose the concept of Linked Data. We stuck RDF/XML and other formats in the footer pages of said documents. To make the system works, you need some set of standards on which everyone agree: HTTP, URIs, RDF are fundamental to Linked Data. URIs and web-liked structured data representation are fundamental to Linked Data. RDF is fundamental to Blogic. Saying we do not need RDF model for Linked Data is like saying we do not need URL or HTTP for the web of documents. Again, here is what I am saying: You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked Data. Please read my words, don't react to them. Kingsley Sincerely Stephane Fellah On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: •
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:09 -0400, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote: On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: • Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: Much snipped... I'm going to quote from one of TimBL's pages, to which Luca and Melvin just pointed. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html Discussing 5-star Linked Open Data (2010 addition to this document created in 2006) -- ★Available on the web (whatever format) but with an open licence, to be Open Data ★★ Available as machine-readable structured data (e.g. excel instead of image scan of a table) ★★★ as (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV instead of excel) All the above plus, Use open standards from W3C (RDF and SPARQL) to identify things, so that people can point at your stuff ★ All the above, plus: Link your data to other people’s data to provide context Now... RDF doesn't come in until you get a 4-star rating. Are all you folks who are arguing that Linked Data *mandates* RDF suggesting that 1-, 2-, and 3-star rated Linked Open Data is *not* Linked Data? please note that i'm one of those believing that linked data DOES NOT mandate RDF and this for the following reason. if A requires A-1 and A-2 and A-3 and B offers A-1 and A-2 and A-3 it is logically incorrect to state that A mandates B, also if B is the only thing worldwide that can offer A-1 and A-2 and A-3. it is save to say that A mandates = something = that B offers. inverse : if one says that A mandates B one alters the definition of what A requires (with the side effect that if B changes (offers A-4 at a certain point of time), the definition of A is changed not as expected by changing the definition of A but of B. for me there a clear distinction between Use open standards from W3C (RDF and SPARQL) and Use RDF and SPARQL wkr jürgen Because this rating scheme strongly suggests otherwise to me. In the same document, the 4 Steps that TimBL Spake -- 1. Use URIs as names for things 2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names. 3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the standards (RDF*, SPARQL) 4. Include links to other URIs. so that they can discover more things. In its *earliest* form (which regrettably was not captured by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine), the last phrase of #3 read using the standards. (I thought it said using the *relevant* standards, emphasis mine, but I'm not certain of that.) I am absolutely certain that it mentioned neither RDF nor SPARQL in specific. I don't remember whether HTTP was originally in #2, but I submit that *that* would be better changed to dereferenceable -- because I don't believe that HTTP is or should be The Answer For All Time, as much as it may have been the best at the time of writing, and may still be the best today. And again, I wonder, even given that Words From TimBL get such special treatment, why is *this* revision considered perfect, if his original writing was not? Be seeing you, Ted -- A: Yes. http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html | Q: Are you sure? | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? Ted Thibodeau, Jr. // voice +1-781-273-0900 x32 Senior Support Evangelism //mailto:tthibod...@openlinksw.com // http://twitter.com/TallTed OpenLink Software, Inc. // http://www.openlinksw.com/ 10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803 Weblog -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/ LinkedIn -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/ Twitter -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink Google+ -- http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/ Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers -- | Jürgen Jakobitsch, | Software Developer | Semantic Web Company GmbH | Mariahilfer Straße 70 / Neubaugasse 1, Top 8 | A - 1070 Wien, Austria | Mob +43 676 62 12 710 | Fax +43.1.402 12 35 - 22 COMPANY INFORMATION | web : http://www.semantic-web.at/ | foaf : http://company.semantic-web.at/person/juergen_jakobitsch PERSONAL INFORMATION | web : http://www.turnguard.com |
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On 20 June 2013 19:46, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Kingsley, long story short, what you mean when you say linked data is not exactly what most other people mean when they say those words. Your understanding of what they mean is much wider and more all-encompassing than the common meaning. Personally, I see what you are getting at and (I think) why you feel it is important, but I think the common, rather narrower, meaning is more useful in conversation, provided it is not used in a kind of not-invented-here way to exclude things from discussion or imply that they are not valid or proper. What is certainly not useful, however, is to keep on loudly disagreeing with people who mean something else. (Of course, that last sentence applies to several people on this thread.) Pat PS. To address your main topic of debate: maybe someone can be using RDF without knowing that they are using RDF. (Like Moliere's bourgous gentihomme.) WIth the rise of JSON-LD, I suspect that this will in fact be the most common situation. In 2004 the RDF brand failed when web 2.0 was unable to integrate FOAF into their products. It's taken 5 years+ to simplify things down to the Linked Data meme (The semantic web done right) and is starting to gain some traction. I think Kingsley was exactly trying to communicate that people should take a holistic approach to LD, and avoid the type of NIH which can and has created silos. Perhaps you object to the tone in which it was delivered. The beauty of of LD is that it's simple and can be understood by a wide range or people (especially outside academia). In terms of branding it's valid to feel that conflating LD and RDF would be a premature optimization. The way the Web spread was a piece at a time. So you could take html without taking http. So the failure of NEXT was a lesson, don’t try to sell it all at one time. Sell each piece on its own merits. Never insist that everybody take all. They will take all the pieces once they see how it fits together. -- Tim Berners-Lee On Jun 20, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 6/20/13 12:50 PM, Stephane Fellah wrote: Hi, I agree with Luca's viewpoint. The W3C standard RDF model (a.k.a triple model) is one of most fundamental piece of the technology stack defining Linked Data (along with URIs and HTTP). I am not disputing that point. Here's what in dispute, and the topic of debate to me: the misconception that you MUST know anything about RDF en route to creating and publishing Linked Data. RDF is an optional implementation detail with a particular outcome in mind i.e., the ability for humans and machines to understand the entity relationship semantics that constitute the Linked Data. I think it is important to make understand the community that Linked Data can be serialized into different representations (Turtle, RDF/XML, JSON-LD, N3, NTriples, TrigG, and any future formats) , as long as they are isomorphic to RDF model (meaning data can be converted to a set of triples and identifiers are based on URIs). I really don't believe that I am disputing this point. Neither do I believe the point (above) is new to anyone on this list. If the data are NOT convertible to RDF model, I do not consider it as Linked Data. And that assertion is inaccurate. It is also indefensible. The World Wide Web as it already exists is full of Linked Data for which RDF processors may or may not exist. It functions, humans and programs understand the LinksTo relation etc.. That's why it works and scales the way it does. Guess what, even though the World Wide Web is dominated by HTML content, it was bootstrapped on the back of a draconian mandate that everything MUST be interpretable as HTML. Ironically, DBpedia most powerful deliverable was the use of HTML to expose the concept of Linked Data. We stuck RDF/XML and other formats in the footer pages of said documents. To make the system works, you need some set of standards on which everyone agree: HTTP, URIs, RDF are fundamental to Linked Data. URIs and web-liked structured data representation are fundamental to Linked Data. RDF is fundamental to Blogic. Saying we do not need RDF model for Linked Data is like saying we do not need URL or HTTP for the web of documents. Again, here is what I am saying: You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked Data. Please read my words, don't react to them. Kingsley Sincerely Stephane Fellah On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote: • Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the
CFP (II): 6th International Workshop on Semantic Sensor Networks (SSN 2013). Submission is July 12.
Apologies for cross-postings. *** ** Call For Papers 6th International Workshop on Semantic Sensor Networks in conjunction with the 12th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) http://knoesis.org/ssn2013 *** ** It is estimated that today there are 4 billion mobile devices that can act as sensors, including active and passive RFID tags. This is complemented by an even larger number of fixed sensors recording observations of a wide variety of modalities. Geographically distributed sensor nodes are capable of forming ad hoc networking topologies, with nodes expected to be dynamically inserted and removed from a network. The sensors are increasingly being connected with Web infrastructure, and the Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) standard developed by the Open Geospatial Consortium is widely being adopted in industry, government and academia alike. While such frameworks provide some interoperability, semantics is increasingly seen as key enabler for integration of sensor data and broader Web information systems. Analytical and reasoning capabilities afforded by Semantic Web standards and technologies are considered important for developing advanced applications that go from capturing observations to recognition of events and ultimately developing comprehensive situational awareness. Defense, transportation, global enterprise, and natural resource management industries are leading the rapid emergence of applications in commercial, civic, and scientific operations that involve sensors, web, services and semantics. Semantic technologies are often proposed as important components of complex, cross-jurisdictional, heterogeneous, dynamic information systems. The needs and opportunities arising from the rapidly growing capabilities of networked sensing devices are a challenging case. The workshop aims to provide an inter-disciplinary forum to explore and promote the technologies related to a combination of semantic web and sensor networking. Specifically, to develop an understanding of the ways semantic web technologies can contribute to the growth, application and deployment of large-scale sensor networks on the one hand, and the ways that sensor networks can contribute to the emerging semantic web, on the other. Topics Of Interest - Semantic support for Sensor Web Enablement - Semantic integration in heterogeneous sensor networks - Citizen sensors, participatory sensing and social sensing - Semantic web services architectures for sensor networks - Semantic algorithms for data fusion and situation awareness - Rule-based sensor systems - Semantic policy management in shared networks - Semantic discovery of sensors, sensor data and services - Semantic approaches to status monitoring and configuration of sensor systems - Semantic sensor context management and provenance - Semantic web in sensor data mashups - Spatio-temporal reasoning in sensor networks - Reasoning with incomplete or uncertain information in sensor networks - Semantic middleware for active and passive sensor networks - Experience in sensor network applications of semantic technologies - Semantic reasoning for network topology management - Ontologies for sensor and RFID networks - Semantic feedback and control - Emergent semantics and ambient intelligence in sensor systems - Scalability, security, trust and privacy in semantic sensor networks - Sensors and observations for symbol grounding * Paper Submission Instructions We solicit the following types of papers: full papers, short papers and demonstration papers. Full papers should be of 12-16 pages length. Short papers should be 2-6 pages and should clearly include Short Paper in the paper title. Demonstration papers should be 1-4 pages, should clearly include Demonstration in the paper title, and are expected to describe software to be demonstrated at the workshop. The papers must be in good English in PDF format formatted in the style of the Springer Publications format for Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) and must not exceed 16 pages. For details on the LNCS style, see Springer's Author Instructions at: http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs?SGWID=0-164-6-793341-0 The papers must be submitted using the following URL: https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ssn20130 * Important dates: - Submission for workshop papers: July 12, 2013 - Notification of acceptance: August 09, 2013 - Workshop: October 21 or 22, 2013 * Organizers and advisory committee: - Cory Henson, Kno.e.sis, Wright State University, USA - Oscar Corcho, Ontology Engineering Group, UPM, Spain - Payam Barnaghi, Center for Communication Systems Research, University of Surrey, UK - Amit Sheth, Kno.e.sis, Wright State University, USA - Kerry Taylor, CSIRO ICT Centre,
Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication
On 06/20/2013 04:46 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: It's taken 5 years+ to simplify things down to the Linked Data meme (The semantic web done right) and is starting to gain some traction. [ . . . ] The beauty of of LD is that it's simple and can be understood by a wide range or people (especially outside academia). In terms of branding it's valid to feel that conflating LD and RDF would be a premature optimization. But if you *believe* that Linked Data is the semantic web done right then unless you intend to re-architect the semantic web, RDF is *essential*, because RDF is the universal data model that was chosen for the semantic web. And without a universal data model you get walled gardens of data that cannot be used together. And that is the *opposite* of what the semantic web is all about. This point was more fully explained here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013Jun/0120.html David
linking data using a different conceptual framework Was does linked data need RDF?
When we define data in terms of source, intellectual properties attached, usage licenses and some additional we may be able to define isomorphic or homomorphic definitions similar to Linked Data with RDF as key instrument. Increasingly data is ported over mobile and wireless networks which defines new channels of aggregating, gathering, converting and consuming data and in this environment the semantic interfacing of processes, apps and other interaction agents becomes increasingly more important. What we need is a very generalized scheme which in a special case reduces to Linked Data RDF based. I started a thread some 3.5 years ago about genetic algorithms that like DNA, tRNA and mRNA all have different ways of using basic building blocks with unique templates for interfacing to assemble large code segments. Currently DNA is being looked at for data storage. Maybe the bio-molecular world of DNA replication may provide some valuable insights into how interacting homomorphic and isomorphic systems can collectively provide a comprehensive and more diverse linked data paradigm made operational. It makes more sense mathematically and logically, a (minimal) set of co-existing conceptual and logical frameworks each with its own operational definitions and component structures. It is obvious that Linked Data/RDF is not the minimal set and I dare anyone to prove otherwise. Milton Ponson GSM: +297 747 8280 PO Box 1154, Oranjestad Aruba, Dutch Caribbean Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
