business.txt
Recently seen on Hacker News: an attempt to make semi-structured data about a business easier to update across various yellow-pages-like services. https://github.com/fesja/businesstxt
Support for Turtle in WebID
The WebID incubation effort is documented at http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebIDand there is a discussion on the mail list about supporting the Turtle format. We are looking for input from members of the linked data community generally. Currently RDF/XML and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 are required for consumers of WebID profiles/pages. Support for Turtle would probably be worded as a required addition to these other formats. The incremental cost of supporting Turtle seems fairly low, given support for RDF/XML. Do readers of this list foresee any significant issues with this addition? Would you recommend this addition? Thanks -Patrick
Re: Combining Linked Data HTTP URIs and HTML5 WebSocket URIs
The problem I am having coming to terms with your question is that the web socket protocol is full custom once the two endpoints have established that they are indeed using web sockets. The http protocol defines all kinds of details that continue from connection through disconnection (e.g. what kind of data is being exchanged). This seems kind of like designing for a gate array (http) vs. a full custom IC. That's probably what you expect, and that's fine - it's just you've created an ASIC -- an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit. And so along the lines of what Kingsley wrote in his response, it seems to me you could: * Design a vocabulary for describing servers and performance metrics using any URL scheme. * Design (at least) two access mechanisms, one based on http and the other based on web sockets. Clients of the latter would just have to understand your application-specific protocol designed to transmit web socket data frames to be formatted and parsed as you see fit. Either access mechanism could be used to communicate (subsets of) the same graph. Potentially confused, I am... -Patrick On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:22 PM, richard.hanc...@3kbo.com wrote: Hi All, I have a couple of questions re combining Linked Data HTTP URIs and HTML5 WebSocket URIs. There are a couple of applications that I would like to build which have a mix of static and dynamic data. For the dynamic data I am planning to use HTML5 WebSockets [1][2] which uses the ws:// and wss:// prefixes. As an example I want to report the runtime status of the servers in a Weblogic cluster. Using JMX monitoring to get the actual status I could use ws://www.3kbo.com:9090/servers/1/status ws://www.3kbo.com:9090/servers/2/status to display the current status of each server in my monitoring app. I am also planning to display LinkedData[3] about each server using the URIs http://www.3kbo.com:8080/servers/1 and http://www.3kbo.com:8080/servers/2. It would seem logical to use owl:sameAs to combine the HTTP URIs and the Websocket URIs to assert that they are referring to the same individuals, but is that valid? I.e. can the following two statements be made in OWL? http://www.3kbo.com:8080/servers/1 owl:sameAs ws://www.3kbo.com:9090/servers/1 . http://www.3kbo.com:8080/servers/2 owl:sameAs ws://www.3kbo.com:9090/servers/2 . Does the forth LinkedData[3] principal 4. Include links to other URIs. so that they can discover more things. implicitly include links to Websocket URIs ? Cheers, Richard Hancock 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebSockets 2. http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 3. http://www.w3.org/wiki/LinkedData
Re: Combining Linked Data HTTP URIs and HTML5 WebSocket URIs
I'd like to hear ideas about that as well. A few thoughts off the top of my head: 1. HTTP cache-control headers - expires, if-modified-since, etc. 2. For a custom web sockets protocol, similar header/meta information could be part of the exchange. 3. Use XMPP + BOSH or web sockets for pushing changes. Changes themselves could be described by Atom, RSS, or the ChangeSet vocabulary ( http://vocab.org/changeset/schema.html ). -Patrick On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:05 PM, richard.hanc...@3kbo.com wrote: Thanks David, Kingsley and Patrick for the answers so far. maybe I should restate my question as follows: With the current specs and definitions of Linked Data currently available, what is the best way to indicate that parts of the information being returned are dynamic? For the server examples below I could create an owl model with server status as a property, but how do I indicate that the value of status is a dynamic property which may change in the near future? What I would like is a Linked Data browser similar to Tabulator that can generically read my Linked Data and having discovered that a particular property is dynamic provide live updates of that property. To my mind HTML5 WebSockets have the potential to provide that dynamic functionality (though currently only via logic specific to a custom browser). So, (leaving aside HTML5 websockets for the moment) my initial question comes down to what is the best way to indicate that the values of some properties are dynamic? Cheers, Richard The problem I am having coming to terms with your question is that the web socket protocol is full custom once the two endpoints have established that they are indeed using web sockets. The http protocol defines all kinds of details that continue from connection through disconnection (e.g. what kind of data is being exchanged). This seems kind of like designing for a gate array (http) vs. a full custom IC. That's probably what you expect, and that's fine - it's just you've created an ASIC -- an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit. And so along the lines of what Kingsley wrote in his response, it seems to me you could: * Design a vocabulary for describing servers and performance metrics using any URL scheme. * Design (at least) two access mechanisms, one based on http and the other based on web sockets. Clients of the latter would just have to understand your application-specific protocol designed to transmit web socket data frames to be formatted and parsed as you see fit. Either access mechanism could be used to communicate (subsets of) the same graph. Potentially confused, I am... -Patrick On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:22 PM, richard.hanc...@3kbo.com wrote: Hi All, I have a couple of questions re combining Linked Data HTTP URIs and HTML5 WebSocket URIs. There are a couple of applications that I would like to build which have a mix of static and dynamic data. For the dynamic data I am planning to use HTML5 WebSockets [1][2] which uses the ws:// and wss:// prefixes. As an example I want to report the runtime status of the servers in a Weblogic cluster. Using JMX monitoring to get the actual status I could use ws://www.3kbo.com:9090/servers/1/status ws://www.3kbo.com:9090/servers/2/status to display the current status of each server in my monitoring app. I am also planning to display LinkedData[3] about each server using the URIs http://www.3kbo.com:8080/servers/1 and http://www.3kbo.com:8080/servers/2. It would seem logical to use owl:sameAs to combine the HTTP URIs and the Websocket URIs to assert that they are referring to the same individuals, but is that valid? I.e. can the following two statements be made in OWL? http://www.3kbo.com:8080/servers/1 owl:sameAs ws://www.3kbo.com:9090/servers/1 . http://www.3kbo.com:8080/servers/2 owl:sameAs ws://www.3kbo.com:9090/servers/2 . Does the forth LinkedData[3] principal 4. Include links to other URIs. so that they can discover more things. implicitly include links to Websocket URIs ? Cheers, Richard Hancock 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebSockets 2. http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 3. http://www.w3.org/wiki/LinkedData
Re: Facebook Linked Data
Question: would be be reasonable to include more than one of those choices? On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote: On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:04:13 -0400 Tim rdf tim...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for pointing out that it might be a foaf:Account and not foaf:Person. I need to dig into their semantics before I run around misusing them! You could even do: http://purl.org/twc/id/person/TimLebo a foaf:Person ; rdfs:seeAlso http://graph.facebook.com/24407945 . And let crawlers come to their own conclusions. -- Toby A Inkster mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk http://tobyinkster.co.uk
Re: Facebook Linked Data
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Sebastian Schaffert sebastian.schaff...@salzburgresearch.at wrote: Ok, let me be a bit more precise: I can stick with REST, JSON, and human readable service descriptions for each service that define for me how to call the REST webservice and how the JSON (or whatever) data that comes back will look like. But Linked Data could do better: there could be a uniform way of accessing the data and a unified contract about what comes back. Agreed. I think we need to remind ourselves that we are at the very beginning of the internet, not to mention the semantic web. -Patrick
Re: Facebook Linked Data
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Sebastian Schaffert sebastian.schaff...@salzburgresearch.at wrote: the point here is that this philosophical discussion... I did not see anything philosophical in the discussion. I am confused by that statement. When I request a Linked Data resource, I expect what comes back to describe what I requested. Otherwise, I as a developer have no way of knowing how I should access the data: when I request a resource that is a document and I get back a description of a person (i.e. other subject) how should I know where to start? It looks to me as though you received exactly what Jesse described in his announcement... If you don't have a vanity URL but know your Facebook ID, you can use that instead (which is actually the fundamental method). Developers need well-defined behaviour, and not this service does it like this, and that service does it like that. This is not the interoperability promise the Semantic Web gives. Certainly greater levels of compatibility will take time across the wide-open internet. But this message seems to be saying, I did not heed the description of the service as it was announced, and the result surprised me, therefore the service is not practical??? -Patrick
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
As fascinating as this discussion is, maybe the two of you want to work it out directly and then report back with a summary? Speaking as just one subscriber's data point, of course, I'm... -Patrick On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net wrote: Kingsley, Correction: I have never accused you of being modest or of not being an accountant. ;-) Nor have I said the costs you talk about in your accountant voice don't exist. The problem is identifying the cost to a particular client, say of email spam, versus the cost the solution for the same person. For example, I picked a spam article at random that says a 100 person firm *could be losing* as much as $55,000 per year due to spam. Think about that for a minute. That works out to $550 per person. So, if your solution costs more than $550 per person, it isn't worth buying. Besides, the $550 per person *isn't on the books.* Purchasing your solution is. As they say, spam is a hidden cost. Hidden costs are hard to quantify or get people to address. Not to mention that your solution requires an investment before the software can exist for any benefit. That is an even harder sell. Isn't investment to enable a return from another investment (software, later) something accountants can see? Hope you are having a great day! Patrick PS: The random spam article: http://blogs.cisco.com/smallbusiness/the_big_cost_of_spam_viruses_for_small_business/ On 8/19/2011 9:57 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/19/11 6:37 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: Kingsley, One more attempt. The press release I pointed to was an example that would have to be particularized to a CIO or CTO in term of *their* expenses of integration, then showing *their* savings. Yes, and I sent you a link to a collection of similar documents from which you could find similar research depending on problem type. On the first page you should have seen a link to a research document about the cost of email spam, for instance. CEO, CIOs, CTOs are all dealing with costs of: 1. Spam 2. Password Management 3. Security 4. Data Integration. There isn't a shortage of market research material re. the above and their costs across a plethora of domains. The difference in our positions, from my context, is that I am saying the benefit to enterprises has to be expressed in terms of *their* bottom line, over the next quarter, six months, year. For what its worth I worked for many years as an accountant before I crossed over to the vendor realm during the early days of Open Systems -- when Unix was being introduced to enterprises. That's the reason why integration middleware and dbms technology has been my passion for 20+ years. I am a slightly different profile to what you assume in your comments re. cost-benefits analysis. I hear (your opinion likely differs) you saying there is a global benefit that enterprises should invest in with no specific ROI for their bottom line in any definite period. See comment above. I live problems first, then architect technology to solve them. When I tell you about the costs of data integration to enterprises I am basically telling you that I've lived the problem for many years. My understanding is quite deep. Sorry, but this isn't an area when I can pretend to be modest :-) Case in point, CAS, http://www.cas.org/. Coming up on 62 million organic and inorganic substances given unique identifiers. What is the incentive for any of their users/customers to switch to Linked Data? I think the issue is more about: what would identifiers provide to this organization with regards to the obvious need to virtualize its critical data sources such that: 1. data sources are represented as fine grained data objects 2. every data object is endowed with an identifier 3. identifiers become superkey that provide conduits highly navigable data object based zeitgeists -- a single identifier should resolve to graph pictorial representing all data associated with that specific identifier and and additional data that has been reconciled logically e.g., leverage owl:sameAs and IFP (inverse functional property) logic. As I said several post ago, your success depends upon people investing in a technology for your benefit. (In all fairness you argue they benefit as well, but they are the best judges of the best use of their time and resources.) Kingsley Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! Patrick On 8/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/18/11 5:27 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: Kingsley, Citing your own bookmark file hardly qualifies as market numbers. My own bookmark? I gave you a URL to a bookmark collection. The collection contains links for a variety of research documents. People promoting technologies make up all sorts of numbers about what use of X will save. Reminds me of the music or software theft numbers. Er. and you posted a link to a press
Re: Schema.org in RDF ...
Would it be reasonable to use http://schema.rdfs.org rather than http://schema.org in the URIs? Essentially mirror what one might hope for schema.org to become. Then if it does become that, link the two together? On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org wrote: Something I don't understand. If I read well all savvy discussions so far, publishers behind http://schema.org URIs are unlikely to ever provide any RDF description, What makes you so sure about that not one day in the (near?) future the Schema.org URIs will serve RDF or JSON, FWIW, additionally to HTML? ;) Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html On 7 Jun 2011, at 08:44, Bernard Vatant wrote: Hi all Something I don't understand. If I read well all savvy discussions so far, publishers behind http://schema.org URIs are unlikely to ever provide any RDF description, so why are those URIs declared as identifiers of RDFS classes in the http://schema.rdfs.org/all.rdf. For all I can see, http://schema.org/Person is the URI of an information resource, not of a class. So I would rather have expected mirroring of the schema.org URIs by schema.rdfs.org URIs, the later fully dereferencable proper RDFS classes expliciting the semantics of the former, while keeping the reference to the source in some dcterms:source element. Example, instead of ... rdf:Description rdf:about=http://schema.org/Person; rdf:type rdf:resource=http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class/ rdfs:label xml:lang=enPerson/rdfs:label rdfs:comment xml:lang=enA person (alive, dead, undead, or fictional)./rdfs:comment rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource=http://schema.org/Thing/ rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource=http://schema.org/Person/ /rdf:Description where I see a clear abuse of rdfs:isDefinedBy, since if you dereference the said URI, you don't find any explicit RDF definition ... I would rather have the following rdf:Description rdf:about=http://schema.rdfs.org/Person; rdf:type rdf:resource=http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class/ rdfs:label xml:lang=enPerson/rdfs:label rdfs:comment xml:lang=enA person (alive, dead, undead, or fictional)./rdfs:comment rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource=http://schema.rdfs.org/Thing/ dcterms:source rdf:resource=http://schema.org/Person/ /rdf:Description To the latter declaration, one could safely add statements like schema.rdfs:Person rdfs:subClassOf foaf:Person etc Or do I miss the point? Bernard 2011/6/3 Michael Hausenblas michael.hausenb...@deri.org http://schema.rdfs.org ... is now available - we're sorry for the delay ;) Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html -- Bernard Vatant Senior Consultant Vocabulary Data Integration Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com Mondeca 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web: http://www.mondeca.com Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com
Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS
Google has advised against mixing markup because it confuses their parsers. I have not seen similar advice from the other two vendors. (Which strikes me as odd, but nevertheless...) On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Schwabe dschw...@inf.puc-rio.br wrote: Martin, I can see the point with Good Relations - they acknowledge they will continue supporting RDFa *with the vocabularies they already support*. My question then was about RDFa support for *schema.rdf.org* vocabulary. Also, Gio's question is applicable - can one have page markups with both RDFa and schema.org? Cheers D On Jun 6, 2011, at 14:02 - 06/06/11, Martin Hepp wrote: A related matter: Neither Google nor Yahoo are abandoning RDFa parsing. In fact, they improved their parsing in the past two days when they started to accept price information in GoodRelations only if the gr:validThrough value is a xsd:datetime literal in the future. I noticed this when suddenly my test-cases at http://www.heppnetz.de/rdfa4google/testcases.html did no longer validate and I had to change the data. Those examples also show that both of their parsers can handle multiple RDFa vocabularies, e.g. combining GoodRelations with the Vehicle Sales Ontology http://purl.org/vso/ns or the Tickets Ontology, http://purl.org/tio/ns. So it is your choice to stick to open vocabularies for Web data and RDFa, instead of trashing superior work for a single, rigid, one-size-fits-all taxonomy and the much lesser used Microdata syntax. I am not sure whether paving the way for schema.org into the RDF world is the right signal. If you want to make sure that open, RDFa-based data will be honored by Google and Yahoo, the best thing you can do is foster the creation of such. The most effective way would be for all of you to encourage students to write GoodRelations extension modules for popular shop software, or to manually add it to large shop sites, e.g. as thesis projects. This is by far the strongest lever to foster mass adoption of RDFa. We already have such for Magento, Joomla, WPEC/Wordpress; Drupal Commerce, Prestashop, and oxid eSales are coming. See http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Shop_extensions Best Martin On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Daniel Schwabe wrote: All, I can agree, in principle, that it may be good that schema.org will contribute to the generation of more structured data, albeit not linked, at least in the beginning. Nevertheless, they could have at least published their vocabulary in RDFS, as M. Hausenblas and his group at DERI brilliantly did, if only to show support for the standard... but this is besides the point. My major concern is that this seems to be not only a matter of syntax, as it is unclear whether their crawlers will *parse* RDFa at all for e.g., schema.rdf.org. From the FAQ, they seem to indicate that they *may* do so if RDFa uptake increases (very vague as to what a satisfactory level of adoption is). So, can someone clarify, if possible, whether if I publish a page using RDFa and schema.rdf.org syntax, it will be properly parsed and indexed in any of those search engines? Cheers Daniel []s D
Re: How To Do Deal with the Subjective Issue of Data Quality?
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: The beauty of the Web (to me) is that it's architecture ultimately allows everyone to agree to disagree, without going to war. Yes, achieving better ways to understand the agreements, the disagreements, and the technical failures is as good of a goal as any. I think the Web will allow user agents coalesce around data spaces that over value. Others will simply wither away over time. No set of draconian rules will avert this reality because said reality is wired into the fabric of scale-free networks such as the Web. I agree. I don't think one can demand more than that. We can hope to try to aid that (loose) process. I believe Data Wikis will go long way to crowd sourcing data reconciliation. Of course, for that to happen you need access control lists (ACLs) and verifiable identity, which is why the WebID protocol (an application of Linked Data) is so important to this whole topic of subjective data quality. I am not familiar with that, but I'll look at it. Off the cuff, I have doubts an ACLs are appropriate for the web, where the nature of URLs seems to have a built-in affinity to a capability-based access control. If the logic is already making its way into the data, why not make conversations about data reconciliation part of the data too? Wikipedia sorta, works, but Data Wikis will take this matter to much greater heights. We'll never be able to compute Why from Who, What, Where, and When data with 100% precision. Adding reconciliatory conversations into the data via Data Wikis will get us much closer than we are today. I think I am with you. -Patrick
Re: Any reason for ontology reuse?
In many cases a wider variety of contributors will have thought through the problem space more thoroughly. And having been applied already could save some effort in your appliances. On Dec 3, 2010 1:18 PM, Percy Enrique Rivera Salas privera.sa...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, I would like to know, which are the specific reason(s), for reuse terms from well-known vocabularies in the process of Publish Linked Data on the Web? (Thesis, dissertation or paper references are very welcome.) In [1] we can find one reason. *In order to make it as easy as possible for client applications to process your data, * *you should reuse terms from well-known vocabularies wherever possible* Any other reason? Thanks in advance for your help. Best Regards, Percy [1]http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/
