RE: [Dbpedia-ontology] [Dbpedia-discussion] Advancing the DBpedia ontology
From: M. Aaron Bossert [mailto:maboss...@gmail.com] I am more than happy to work the ML problem with you. Hi Aaron! Would be great to work with someone from Cray but I don't have a good idea how to use ML here, nor indeed a lot of trust in using ML to produce or fix mappings. E.g. see this exchange: https://twitter.com/valexiev1/status/565814870973890560 Generating 30% wrong prop maps for the Ukrainian dbpedia is IMHO doing them a disservice! Who's gonna clean up all this? I guess I'm more of a MLab (Manual Labor) guy, I just learned they coined such alias for crowdsourcing: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-13704-9_14 DBO: dbo:parent rdfs:range dbo:Person Wikipedia: | mother = [[Queen Victoria]] of [[England]] For your example of the dichotomy with the domain and range of mother and queen Victoria being the mother, this begs for contextual approach to that concept She IS the mother, not sure what you mean. Here a simple post-extraction cleanup can take care of it: remove all statements that violate range (so dbo:parent [[England]] will be removed). But we dare not do it, because many of the ranges are imprecise, or set wishfully without regard to existing data / mappings. (As usual, the real data is more complex than any model of it.) So we need to check our Ontological Assumptions and precise domains/ranges before such cleanup. See example in http://vladimiralexiev.github.io/pres/20150209-dbpedia/dbpedia-problems-long.html#sec-6-7
Re: [Dbpedia-ontology] [Dbpedia-discussion] Advancing the DBpedia ontology
Vladimir, I'm thinking of trying to do some stats on the existing ontology and the mappings to see where there is room for improvement. I'm tied up this week with a couple deadlines that I seem to moving towards at greater than light speed, though my progress is not. As soon as I get the rough cut done, I'll share the results with you and maybe we can discuss paths forward? I'm with you on the 30% error rate...that doesn't help anyone. Aaron On Feb 25, 2015, at 08:02, Vladimir Alexiev vladimir.alex...@ontotext.com wrote: From: M. Aaron Bossert [mailto:maboss...@gmail.com] I am more than happy to work the ML problem with you. Hi Aaron! Would be great to work with someone from Cray but I don't have a good idea how to use ML here, nor indeed a lot of trust in using ML to produce or fix mappings. E.g. see this exchange: https://twitter.com/valexiev1/status/565814870973890560 Generating 30% wrong prop maps for the Ukrainian dbpedia is IMHO doing them a disservice! Who's gonna clean up all this? I guess I'm more of a MLab (Manual Labor) guy, I just learned they coined such alias for crowdsourcing: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-13704-9_14 DBO: dbo:parent rdfs:range dbo:Person Wikipedia: | mother = [[Queen Victoria]] of [[England]] For your example of the dichotomy with the domain and range of mother and queen Victoria being the mother, this begs for contextual approach to that concept She IS the mother, not sure what you mean. Here a simple post-extraction cleanup can take care of it: remove all statements that violate range (so dbo:parent [[England]] will be removed). But we dare not do it, because many of the ranges are imprecise, or set wishfully without regard to existing data / mappings. (As usual, the real data is more complex than any model of it.) So we need to check our Ontological Assumptions and precise domains/ranges before such cleanup. See example in http://vladimiralexiev.github.io/pres/20150209-dbpedia/dbpedia-problems-long.html#sec-6-7
VoCamp in Energy measurement data in municipalities
(Apologies for cross-posting) Please register in http://goo.gl/X5XUJR by April 1, 2015. Call for Participation VoCamp in Energy measurement data in municipalities http://smartcity.linkeddata.es/LD4SC/VoCamp/ April 22-23, 2015 Austrian Institute of Technology - AIT Vienna, Austria Abstract - This VoCamp on Energy measurement data in municipalities is focused on how municipalities can represent their data about energy measurement in order to publish it online (e.g., as open data). The interest to this question arises from the expected benefits such as the ability to easily reuse these data by third parties or to link them to other relevant data for further processing (e.g., building information models, climate, occupancy). Content - The goal of the VoCamp will be to obtain a common ontology that can be used by municipalities to represent their energy measurement data in order to publish such data online as Linked Data. The event will be of a practical nature. A set of energy measurement datasets will be selected and, dividing participants into groups, we will define vocabularies that can be used to represent such datasets. Work will start from a seed vocabulary and the idea is to end the VoCamp with a common vocabulary that can be used by the different datasets. Apart from defining this common vocabulary, we aim to analyse potential use cases for these datasets+vocabularies as well as work on the localization of these vocabularies. VoCamp participants are encouraged to bring their own datasets to the VoCamp; this way after the event they will have a vocabulary that can be used with their data. To this end, datasets must be submitted 15 days before the VoCamp to the organizers. Venue - The event will be held at the Austrian Institute of Technology - AIT (Energy Department), Giefinggasse 2, 1210 Vienna, Austria. Registration The VoCamp is open to all practitioners and researchers interested in the application of Linked Data technologies for the publication of energy measurement data at a municipality level. The VoCamp event itself is free and the the organization will provide lunches and coffee breaks. In addition, there is a limited budget for travel and accommodation expenses according to the legislation of the EC. Apply for the travel and accommodation reimburse in the registration form. Participants should register to the VoCamp through:http://goo.gl/X5XUJR The deadline for registrations is April 1, 2015. Important dates: - Registration: April 1, 2015 - Datasets to be used: April 8, 2015 - Vocamp: April 22-23, 2015 Organizing committee: - María Poveda Villalón, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid - Raúl García Castro, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid - Jan Peters-Anders, AIT - Andrea Cavallaro, D’Appolonia Contact: vocamp-ene...@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es -- María Poveda Villalón PhD student Ontology Engineering Group (OEG) Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Madrid, Spain e-mail: mpov...@fi.upm.es website: http://purl.org/net/mpoveda http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~mpoveda/ blog: http://thepetiteontologist.wordpress.com/
FGCT 2015
Fourth International Conference on Future Generation Communication Technologies (FGCT 2015) University of Bedfordshire, Luton (near London) UK July 29-31, 2015 www.socio.org.uk/fgct (Technically co-sponsored by IEEE UK RI) In the last decade, a number of newer communication technologies have been evolved, which have a significant impact on the technology, as a whole. The impact ranges from incremental applications to dramatical breakthrough in the society. Users rely heavily on broadcast technology, social media, mobile devices, video games and other innovations to enrich the learning and adoption process. This conference is designed for teachers, administrators, practitioners, researchers and scientists in the development arenas. It aims to provide discussions and simulations in the communication technology at the broad level and broadcasting technology and related technologies at the micro level. Through a set of research papers, using innovative and interactive approach, participants can expect to share a set of research that will prepare them to apply new technologies to their work in teaching, research and educational development amid this rapidly evolving landscape. Topics discussed in this platform are not limited to- Emerging cellular and new network architectures for 5G New antenna and RF technology for 5G wireless Internet of Everything Modulation algorithms Circuits, software and systems for 5G Convergence of multi-modes, multi-bands, multi-standards and multi- applications in 5G systems Cognitive radio and collaborative transmissions in 5G Computing and processing platform for 5G Programming models and development tools to enable 5G systems Small cells and heterogeneous networks Metrics and Evaluation of 5G systems Standardization of 5G Broadcost technology Future Internet and networking architectures Future mobile communications Mobile Web Technology Mobile TV and multimedia phones Communication Security, Trust, Protocols and Applications Communication Interfaces Communication Modelling Satellite and space communications Communication software Future Generation Communication Networks Communication Network Security Communication Data Grids Collaborative Communication Technology Intelligence for future communication systems Forthcoming optical communication systems Communication Technology for Elearning, Egovernment, Ebusiness Games and games designing Social technology devises, tools and applications Crowdsourcing and Human Computation Human-computer communication Pervasive Computing Grid, crowd sourcing and cloud computing Hypermedia systems Software and technologies for E-communication Intelligent Systems for E-communication Future Cloud for Communication Future warehousing Future communication for healthcare and medical devices applications Future communication for Mechatronic applications All presented papers in the conference will be published in the proceedings of the conference and submitted to the IEEE Xplore Digital Library for inclusion. The conference will have workshops on specific themes, industrial presentation, invited talks and collaborative discussion forums. Important Dates Submission of Papers: May 01, 2015 Notification of Acceptance: June 10, 2015 Camera Ready: July 10, 2015 Conference Dates: July 29-31, 2015 The selected papers after extension and modification will be published in many peer reviewed and indexed journals. Journal of Computer and System Sciences/ (ISI/Scopus) Journal of Digital Information Management (Scopus/EI) International Journal of Computational Science and Engineering (Scopus and EI Indexed) Decision Analytics International Journal of Big Data Intelligence International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences (Scopus/EI) International Journal of Management and Decision Making (Scopus/EI) International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems (Scopus/EI) Programme Committee General Chair Ezendu Ariwa, University of Bedfordshire, UK Programme Chairs Carsten Maple, Warwick University, UK Yong Yue, University of Bedfordshire, UK Hathairat Ketmaneechairat, King Mongkut’s University of Technology, Thailand Programme Co-Chairs Koodichimma Ibe-Ariwa, Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK Gloria Chukwudebe, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria Submissions at: http://www.socio.org.uk/fgct/submission.php Email: f...@socio.org.uk --
Italian DBpedia 3.4. release
I am pleased to announce the 3.4. release of the Italian DBpedia chapter. It includes links to Wikidata and exhaustive type coverage through DBTax. Check out the blog post here: http://it.dbpedia.org/2015/02/dbpedia-italiana-release-3-4-wikidata-e-dbtax/?lang=en Cheers! -- Marco Fossati http://about.me/marco.fossati Twitter: @hjfocs Skype: hell_j
Re: Microsoft Access for RDF?
Hi Kingsley, In https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2015Feb/0116.html You said, re Annalist: My enhancement requests would be that you consider supporting of at least one of the following, in regards to storage I/O: 1. LDP 2. WebDAV 3. SPARQL Graph Protocol 4. SPARQL 1.1 Insert, Update, Delete. As for Access Controls on the target storage destinations, don't worry about that in the RDF editor itself, leave that to the storage provider [1] that supports any combination of the protocols above. Thanks for you comments and feedback - I've taken note of them. My original (and current) plan is to provide HTTP access (GET/PUT/POST/etc) with a little bit of WebDAV to handle directory content enumeration., which I think is consistent with your suggestion (cf. [1]). The other options you mention are not ruled out. You say I shouldn't worry too much about access control, but leave that to the back-end store. If by this you mean *just* access control, then that makes sense to me. A challenge I face is to understand what authentication tokens are widely supported by existing HTTP stores. Annalist itself uses OpenID Connect (ala Google+, etc) is its main authentication mechanism, so I cannot assume that I have access to original user credentials to construct arbitrary security tokens. I had been thinking that something based on OAuth2 might be appropriate (I looked at UMA [2], had some problems with it as a total solution, but I might be able to use some of its elements). I took a look at the link you provided, but there seem to be a lot of moving parts and couldn't really figure out what you were describing there. Thanks! #g -- [1] https://github.com/gklyne/annalist/issues/32 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Managed_Access, http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Home
RE: [Dbpedia-discussion] Italian DBpedia 3.4. release
Hi Vladimir, Il 24/feb/2015 08:38 Vladimir Alexiev vladimir.alex...@ontotext.com ha scritto: Excellent, thanks!! 1. Do you have a description how does this work? I can't even find your presentation from Dublin 7 Feb The paper describing the approach is under review on a top conference, I wilk share it when the review period is over. 2. How can I split out Drink from Food? E.g. Beer is in here: http://it.dbpedia.org/downloads/dbtax/A-Box/Food.ttl Not joking: this can help us in Europeana Food and Drink :-) The T-Box may help you out. You can check http://it.dbpedia.org/downloads/dbtax/T-Box.tsv Hope this helps. Marco Cheers! Vladimir
Enterprise information system
So, here’s a thing. Usually you talk to a company about introducing Linked Data technologies to their existing IT infrastructure, emphasising that you can add stuff to work with existing systems (low risk, low cost etc.) to improve all sorts of stuff (silo breakdown, comprehensive dashboards, etc..) But what if you start from scratch? So, the company wants to base all its stuff around Linked Data technologies, starting with information about employees, what they did and are doing, projects, etc., and moving on to embrace the whole gamut. (Sort of like a typical personnel management core, plus a load of other related DBs.) Let’s say for an organisation of a few thousand, roughly none of whom are technical, of course. It’s a pretty standard thing to need, and gives great value. Is there a solution out of the box for all the data capture from individuals, and reports, queries, etc.? Or would they end up with a team of developers having to build bespoke things? Or, heaven forfend!, would they end up using conventional methods for all the interface management, and then have the usual LD extra system? Any thoughts? -- Hugh Glaser 20 Portchester Rise Eastleigh SO50 4QS Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155, Home: +44 23 8061 5652
RE: [Dbpedia-ontology] [Dbpedia-discussion] Advancing the DBpedia ontology
It seems the first level effort should be a requirements analysis for the Dbpedia ontology. - What is the level of expressiveness needed in the ontology language- 1st order logic, some level of descriptive logic, or a less expressive language? - Based on the above, what specific ontology implementation language should be used? - Should the Dbpedia ontology leverage an existing upper ontology, such as SUMO, DOLCE, etc? - Should the Dbpedia ontology architecture consist of a basic common core of concepts (possibly in addition to the concepts in a upper ontology) that are then extended by additional domain ontologies? - How will the Dbpedia ontology be managed? - What are the hosting requirements for access loads on the ontology? How many simultaneous users? This is only a cursory cut at Dbpedia ontology requirement issues. But, it seems the community needs to come to grips with this issue before implementing specific changes to the existing ontology. John Flynn http://semanticsimulations.com -Original Message- From: M. Aaron Bossert [mailto:maboss...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:13 AM To: vladimir.alex...@ontotext.com Cc: dbpedia-ontology; Linked Data community; SW-forum; dbpedia-discuss...@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Dbpedia-ontology] [Dbpedia-discussion] Advancing the DBpedia ontology Vladimir, I'm thinking of trying to do some stats on the existing ontology and the mappings to see where there is room for improvement. I'm tied up this week with a couple deadlines that I seem to moving towards at greater than light speed, though my progress is not. As soon as I get the rough cut done, I'll share the results with you and maybe we can discuss paths forward? I'm with you on the 30% error rate...that doesn't help anyone. Aaron
Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] [Dbpedia-ontology] Advancing the DBpedia ontology
Hi John, My thoughts are for DBpedia to stay close to the mission of extracting quality data from Wikipedia, and no more. That quality extraction is an essential grease to the linked data ecosystem, and of much major benefit to anyone needful of broadly useful structured data. I think both Wikipedia and DBpedia have shown that crowdsourced entity information and data works beautifully, but the ontologies or knowledge graphs (category structures) that emerge from these effort are mush. DBpedia, or schema.org from that standpoint, should not be concerned so much about coherent schema, computable knowledge graphs, ontological defensibility, or any such T-Box considerations. They have demonstrably shown themselves to not be strong in these suits. No one hears the term folksonomy any more because all initial admirers have seen no crowd-sourced schema to really work (from dmoz to Freebase). A schema is not something to be universally consented, but a framework by which to understand a given domain. Yet the conundrum is, to organize anything globally, some form of conceptual agreement about a top-level schema is required. Look to what DBpedia now does strongly: extract vetted structured data from Wikipedia for broader consumption on the Web of data. My counsel is to not let DBpedia's mission stray into questions of conceptual truth. Keep the ontology flat and simple with no aspirations other than just the facts, ma'am. Thanks, Mike On 2/25/2015 10:33 PM, M. Aaron Bossert wrote: John, You make a good point...but are we talking about a complete tear-down of the existing ontology? I'm not necessarily opposed to that notion, by want to make sure that we are all in agreement as to the scope of work, as it were. What would be the implications of a complete redo? Would the benefit outweigh the impact to the community? I would assume that there would be a ripple effect across all other LOD datasets that map to dbpedia, correct? Or am I grossly overstating/misunderstanding how interconnected the ontology is? Vladimir, your thoughts? Aaron On Feb 25, 2015, at 21:14, John Flynn jflyn...@verizon.net wrote: It seems the first level effort should be a requirements analysis for the Dbpedia ontology. - What is the level of expressiveness needed in the ontology language- 1st order logic, some level of descriptive logic, or a less expressive language? - Based on the above, what specific ontology implementation language should be used? - Should the Dbpedia ontology leverage an existing upper ontology, such as SUMO, DOLCE, etc? - Should the Dbpedia ontology architecture consist of a basic common core of concepts (possibly in addition to the concepts in a upper ontology) that are then extended by additional domain ontologies? - How will the Dbpedia ontology be managed? - What are the hosting requirements for access loads on the ontology? How many simultaneous users? This is only a cursory cut at Dbpedia ontology requirement issues. But, it seems the community needs to come to grips with this issue before implementing specific changes to the existing ontology. John Flynn http://semanticsimulations.com -Original Message- From: M. Aaron Bossert [mailto:maboss...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:13 AM To: vladimir.alex...@ontotext.com Cc: dbpedia-ontology; Linked Data community; SW-forum; dbpedia-discuss...@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Dbpedia-ontology] [Dbpedia-discussion] Advancing the DBpedia ontology Vladimir, I'm thinking of trying to do some stats on the existing ontology and the mappings to see where there is room for improvement. I'm tied up this week with a couple deadlines that I seem to moving towards at greater than light speed, though my progress is not. As soon as I get the rough cut done, I'll share the results with you and maybe we can discuss paths forward? I'm with you on the 30% error rate...that doesn't help anyone. Aaron -- Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ ___ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list dbpedia-discuss...@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] [Dbpedia-ontology] Advancing the DBpedia ontology
The one thing I would say is that while I agree in general...the one thing that keeps eating away at me is that there is tremendous potential in dbpedia for bigger questions to be answered, but the more advanced analytics require that some level of sanity exists within the ontology...much more so than now. As an example, I have created several different applications for customers that are based on dbpedia...one of which is a recommender system. The level of effort required to simply say (in SPARQL, of course) show me every living person that is highly similar to person X, excluding politicians athletes and actors is quite a tedious thing to do until after I have fixed all the erroneous and missing properties associated with things in general...which person class do I focus on? Which living people? Which politicians? Perhaps legislators? It gets pretty ugly, pretty quickly. I'm not sure that the ontology needs to be completely rewritten, but surely it can't be that difficult to clean up a bit with a little common sense logic applied such as if a thing has a death date (never mind which one), then surely they are not a living person...or if they hold a political office, surely they must be a politician. Aaron On Feb 26, 2015, at 00:19, Mike Bergman m...@mkbergman.com wrote: Hi John, My thoughts are for DBpedia to stay close to the mission of extracting quality data from Wikipedia, and no more. That quality extraction is an essential grease to the linked data ecosystem, and of much major benefit to anyone needful of broadly useful structured data. I think both Wikipedia and DBpedia have shown that crowdsourced entity information and data works beautifully, but the ontologies or knowledge graphs (category structures) that emerge from these effort are mush. DBpedia, or schema.org from that standpoint, should not be concerned so much about coherent schema, computable knowledge graphs, ontological defensibility, or any such T-Box considerations. They have demonstrably shown themselves to not be strong in these suits. No one hears the term folksonomy any more because all initial admirers have seen no crowd-sourced schema to really work (from dmoz to Freebase). A schema is not something to be universally consented, but a framework by which to understand a given domain. Yet the conundrum is, to organize anything globally, some form of conceptual agreement about a top-level schema is required. Look to what DBpedia now does strongly: extract vetted structured data from Wikipedia for broader consumption on the Web of data. My counsel is to not let DBpedia's mission stray into questions of conceptual truth. Keep the ontology flat and simple with no aspirations other than just the facts, ma'am. Thanks, Mike On 2/25/2015 10:33 PM, M. Aaron Bossert wrote: John, You make a good point...but are we talking about a complete tear-down of the existing ontology? I'm not necessarily opposed to that notion, by want to make sure that we are all in agreement as to the scope of work, as it were. What would be the implications of a complete redo? Would the benefit outweigh the impact to the community? I would assume that there would be a ripple effect across all other LOD datasets that map to dbpedia, correct? Or am I grossly overstating/misunderstanding how interconnected the ontology is? Vladimir, your thoughts? Aaron On Feb 25, 2015, at 21:14, John Flynn jflyn...@verizon.net wrote: It seems the first level effort should be a requirements analysis for the Dbpedia ontology. - What is the level of expressiveness needed in the ontology language- 1st order logic, some level of descriptive logic, or a less expressive language? - Based on the above, what specific ontology implementation language should be used? - Should the Dbpedia ontology leverage an existing upper ontology, such as SUMO, DOLCE, etc? - Should the Dbpedia ontology architecture consist of a basic common core of concepts (possibly in addition to the concepts in a upper ontology) that are then extended by additional domain ontologies? - How will the Dbpedia ontology be managed? - What are the hosting requirements for access loads on the ontology? How many simultaneous users? This is only a cursory cut at Dbpedia ontology requirement issues. But, it seems the community needs to come to grips with this issue before implementing specific changes to the existing ontology. John Flynn http://semanticsimulations.com -Original Message- From: M. Aaron Bossert [mailto:maboss...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:13 AM To: vladimir.alex...@ontotext.com Cc: dbpedia-ontology; Linked Data community; SW-forum; dbpedia-discuss...@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Dbpedia-ontology] [Dbpedia-discussion] Advancing the DBpedia ontology Vladimir, I'm thinking of trying to do some stats on the existing ontology and the
Re: [Dbpedia-ontology] [Dbpedia-discussion] Advancing the DBpedia ontology
John, You make a good point...but are we talking about a complete tear-down of the existing ontology? I'm not necessarily opposed to that notion, by want to make sure that we are all in agreement as to the scope of work, as it were. What would be the implications of a complete redo? Would the benefit outweigh the impact to the community? I would assume that there would be a ripple effect across all other LOD datasets that map to dbpedia, correct? Or am I grossly overstating/misunderstanding how interconnected the ontology is? Vladimir, your thoughts? Aaron On Feb 25, 2015, at 21:14, John Flynn jflyn...@verizon.net wrote: It seems the first level effort should be a requirements analysis for the Dbpedia ontology. - What is the level of expressiveness needed in the ontology language- 1st order logic, some level of descriptive logic, or a less expressive language? - Based on the above, what specific ontology implementation language should be used? - Should the Dbpedia ontology leverage an existing upper ontology, such as SUMO, DOLCE, etc? - Should the Dbpedia ontology architecture consist of a basic common core of concepts (possibly in addition to the concepts in a upper ontology) that are then extended by additional domain ontologies? - How will the Dbpedia ontology be managed? - What are the hosting requirements for access loads on the ontology? How many simultaneous users? This is only a cursory cut at Dbpedia ontology requirement issues. But, it seems the community needs to come to grips with this issue before implementing specific changes to the existing ontology. John Flynn http://semanticsimulations.com -Original Message- From: M. Aaron Bossert [mailto:maboss...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:13 AM To: vladimir.alex...@ontotext.com Cc: dbpedia-ontology; Linked Data community; SW-forum; dbpedia-discuss...@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Dbpedia-ontology] [Dbpedia-discussion] Advancing the DBpedia ontology Vladimir, I'm thinking of trying to do some stats on the existing ontology and the mappings to see where there is room for improvement. I'm tied up this week with a couple deadlines that I seem to moving towards at greater than light speed, though my progress is not. As soon as I get the rough cut done, I'll share the results with you and maybe we can discuss paths forward? I'm with you on the 30% error rate...that doesn't help anyone. Aaron
Re: Enterprise information system
Hugh, i think if you send them down a route where you have to write bespoke software (which uses RDF concept, hard to find developers to write and maintain) for purposes for which mature widely tested and widely spread software exists you'd be doing them a disservice. Eventually they'll find someone showing them how normally these things are done they'd say hey but this is what we need really - give it to us now. This will at that point both possibly spoil your reputation with them and their perception toward LD technologies, which could on the other hand be useful if used in moderation - or in domain where data variability is indeed extreme. I would recommend look for good open source personnel or project management system (Groupware etc) and see if it makes sense to introduce concepts such as unique identifiers used across the organization (Which could be resolvable URI thus giving you a homepage for every core concept of the company). But be flexible even in this case if you are to add any LD at all.. people often prefer typ+number (e.g. personnel ID, project code) than URIs so if you do a global lookup interface for all, dont insist they must use URIs to find something. However if anything does in fact show on a stable and nice URI in their browser, they'll naturally refer to it when passing each other references in emails etc. but this is the same than what they would be doing with any reputable content management system. my2c Gio On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Hugh Glaser h...@glasers.org wrote: So, here’s a thing. Usually you talk to a company about introducing Linked Data technologies to their existing IT infrastructure, emphasising that you can add stuff to work with existing systems (low risk, low cost etc.) to improve all sorts of stuff (silo breakdown, comprehensive dashboards, etc..) But what if you start from scratch? So, the company wants to base all its stuff around Linked Data technologies, starting with information about employees, what they did and are doing, projects, etc., and moving on to embrace the whole gamut. (Sort of like a typical personnel management core, plus a load of other related DBs.) Let’s say for an organisation of a few thousand, roughly none of whom are technical, of course. It’s a pretty standard thing to need, and gives great value. Is there a solution out of the box for all the data capture from individuals, and reports, queries, etc.? Or would they end up with a team of developers having to build bespoke things? Or, heaven forfend!, would they end up using conventional methods for all the interface management, and then have the usual LD extra system? Any thoughts? -- Hugh Glaser 20 Portchester Rise Eastleigh SO50 4QS Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155, Home: +44 23 8061 5652
