Re: Government ontology?

[Stephane Fellah]

Hi Daniel,

Check out this link http://oegov.org

Regards
Stephane Fellah
On Apr 7, 2015 5:15 PM, "Daniel Schwabe"  wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm looking for an ontology describing political bodies in Government,
> e.g., Parliament, Congress, Senate, etc...
> It needs to describe the relation between a person and an office,
> legislature, geographical base (state, district, county, ...), etc...
> Any pointers will be greatly appreciated!
>
>
> Daniel Schwabe  Dept. de Informatica, PUC-Rio
> Tel:+55-21-3527 1500 r. 4356R. M. de S. Vicente, 225
> Fax: +55-21-3527 1530   Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22453-900, Brasil
> http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~dschwabe
>
>
>
>
>

Best way to define profile of DCAT ?

[Stephane Fellah]

Hi,

I am not sure this is the right mailing list to ask this question as
the  Government
Linked Data WG mailing list is closed now. I have a question about the
creation of DCAT profiles.
The DCAT specification defines a number of properties in the specification
and uses extensively properties from Dublin Core. However the DCAT ontology
document does not contain any reference to these external properties and
does not define any constraints on them (cardinality or domain). To know
which properties needs to be used, profiles such as DCAT-AP are defined,
but again it is not clear why they do no use OWL to impose constraints on
cardinality or domain. While I understand this gives a lot of flexibility
to the standard, it makes also difficult to build application from the
ontology without knowing which properties to use when you want to capture
metadata about datasets for example.

Could anyone explain why this design choice has been done and what is the
best way to write a profile for DCAT to indicate which properties to use
(should I use OWL with cardinality or just copy definition of properties
(DC Properties) without importing the ontology) ? Any other alternative
approaches ?

Thanks
Stephane Fellah
Chief Knowledge Scientist

Re: Minimizing data volume

[Stephane Fellah]

Franz,

In order to get performance on spatial operations on large geometries, I
advice you to use spatial indexing (R-Tree) for geometries description (GML
or WKT literal). This could be done at the time of transaction on the
database. Query engine should leverage this index to delegate spatial
operations to the spatial index. An example of open source implementing
this approach is USeekM  . RDF
database implementations could optimize the storage of geometry literal
(WKT or GML) in a binary form (or more complex form like in Oracle
Spatial). The approach would depend on the implementation of the
datastores.

Best regards
Stephane


On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan <
frans.kni...@geodan.nl> wrote:

>  On 10-9-2013 21:36, Rob Warren wrote:
>
> Frans,
>
> The nice thing about a sparql server is that you get what you ask for. If you 
> want only the "Feature" without the geometry, you can do that. If you only 
> want whatever centroid the Feature is linked to, you can do that. If you want 
> everything, you can do that. At worst, you can 'count' the length of the 
> literal or the number of points to give you an idea of the number of 
> coordinates present.
>
> I'm not completely happy with the opengis literals myself, but realize that 
> with basic sparql you can strip the coordinates to the bare numerical 
> information (no uri's) and send it in json to the client. Add to this 
> transport level compression (web-server's problem) and things are as fast as 
> can be expected for any remote storage situation.
>
>  Do you mean HTTP compression?
> Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I was not aware that such a
> thing existed. I will put it on my list of things to investigate. For
> example, I wonder if it is commonly supported in Linked Data clients and
> servers.
>
>
> You will never compete with a local drive with a binary representation.
>
> best,
> rhw
>
>
> On 2013-09-10, at 4:09 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan wrote:
>
>
>  The problem that I see is how to handle those cases where geometry literals 
> become unwieldy. The GeoSparql specification that you mention provides a way 
> of writing a geometry as a literal in RDF. There may be several approaches as 
> to how to serialize a geometry, but ending up with series of coordinates is 
> inescapable. And I am worried about the impact of these series of coordinates 
> becoming very long. That is why I also do like the idea of providing some 
> extra data to enable a client to distinguish between large and small 
> geometries. The small ones could be downloaded and processed right away, but 
> the bigger ones might need some extra care.
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *Geodan*
> President Kennedylaan 1
> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>
> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
> E frans.kni...@geodan.nl
> www.geodan.nl | disclaimer 
> --
>

Re: Linked Data Glossary is published!

[Stephane Fellah]

Bernard,

I was thinking the same thing. If it is not done, I would be interested to
participate in this effort.

Stephane Fellah
smartRealm LLC


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Bernard Vatant  wrote:

> Hi Bernadette
>
> Great job. What about a publication of the glossary as linked data? In
> SKOS for example :)
>
> Bernard
>
> *Bernard Vatant
> *
> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
>  Skype : bernard.vatant
> Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://bvatant.blogspot.com>
> Linked Open Vocabularies : lov.okfn.org
> 
> *Mondeca**  **   *
> 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
> www.mondeca.com
> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
> --
> Meet us during the European Open Data Week <http://opendataweek.org> in
> Marseille (June 25-28)
>
>
>
>
> 2013/6/27 Bernadette Hyland 
>
>> Hi,
>> On behalf of the editors, I'm pleased to announce the publication of the
>> peer-reviewed *Linked Data Glossary* published as a W3C Working Group
>> Note effective 27-June-2013.[1]
>>
>> We hope this document serves as a useful glossary containing terms
>> defined and used to describe Linked Data, and its associated vocabularies
>> and best practices for publishing structured data on the Web.
>>
>> The LD Glossary is intended to help foster constructive discussions
>> between the Web 2.0 and 3.0 developer communities, encouraging all of us
>> appreciate the application of different technologies for different use
>> cases.  We hope the glossary serves as a useful starting point in your
>> discussions about data sharing on the Web.
>>
>> Finally, the editors are grateful to David Wood for contributing the
>> initial glossary terms from Linking Government 
>> Data<http://www.springer.com/computer/database+management+%26+information+retrieval/book/978-1-4614-1766-8>,
>> (Springer 2011). The editors wish to also thank members of the Government
>> Linked Data Working Group <http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/> with special
>> thanks to the reviewers and contributors: Thomas Baker, Hadley Beeman,
>> Richard Cyganiak, Michael Hausenblas, Sandro Hawke, Benedikt Kaempgen,
>> James McKinney, Marios Meimaris, Jindrich Mynarz and Dave Reynolds who
>> diligently iterated the W3C Linked Data Glossary in order to create a
>> foundation of terms upon which to discuss and better describe the Web of
>> Data.  If there is anyone that the editors inadvertently overlooked in this
>> list, please accept our apologies.
>>
>> Thank you one & all!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Bernadette 
>> Hyland<http://3roundstones.com/about-us/leadership-team/bernadette-hyland/>,
>> 3 Round Stones <http://3roundstones.com/> Ghislain 
>> Atemezing<http://www.eurecom.fr/%7Eatemezin>,
>> EURECOM <http://www.eurecom.fr> Michael Pendleton, US Environmental
>> Protection Agency <http://www.epa.gov> Biplav Srivastava, 
>> IBM<http://www.ibm.com/in/research/>
>>
>> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
>> Charter: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/
>>
>
>

Re: Linked Data Glossary is published!

[Stephane Fellah]

Great work ! Thank you for putting this together. I hope this will put at
rest some of the terminology discussions that occurred over the last weeks.

Sincerely
Stephane Fellah


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Bernadette Hyland <
bhyl...@3roundstones.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> On behalf of the editors, I'm pleased to announce the publication of the
> peer-reviewed *Linked Data Glossary* published as a W3C Working Group
> Note effective 27-June-2013.[1]
>
> We hope this document serves as a useful glossary containing terms defined
> and used to describe Linked Data, and its associated vocabularies and best
> practices for publishing structured data on the Web.
>
> The LD Glossary is intended to help foster constructive discussions
> between the Web 2.0 and 3.0 developer communities, encouraging all of us
> appreciate the application of different technologies for different use
> cases.  We hope the glossary serves as a useful starting point in your
> discussions about data sharing on the Web.
>
> Finally, the editors are grateful to David Wood for contributing the
> initial glossary terms from Linking Government 
> Data<http://www.springer.com/computer/database+management+%26+information+retrieval/book/978-1-4614-1766-8>,
> (Springer 2011). The editors wish to also thank members of the Government
> Linked Data Working Group <http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/> with special
> thanks to the reviewers and contributors: Thomas Baker, Hadley Beeman,
> Richard Cyganiak, Michael Hausenblas, Sandro Hawke, Benedikt Kaempgen,
> James McKinney, Marios Meimaris, Jindrich Mynarz and Dave Reynolds who
> diligently iterated the W3C Linked Data Glossary in order to create a
> foundation of terms upon which to discuss and better describe the Web of
> Data.  If there is anyone that the editors inadvertently overlooked in this
> list, please accept our apologies.
>
> Thank you one & all!
>
> Sincerely,
> Bernadette 
> Hyland<http://3roundstones.com/about-us/leadership-team/bernadette-hyland/>,
> 3 Round Stones <http://3roundstones.com/> Ghislain 
> Atemezing<http://www.eurecom.fr/%7Eatemezin>,
> EURECOM <http://www.eurecom.fr> Michael Pendleton, US Environmental
> Protection Agency <http://www.epa.gov> Biplav Srivastava, 
> IBM<http://www.ibm.com/in/research/>
>
> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
> Charter: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/
>

Re: RDF Investigations

[Stephane Fellah]

Kingsley,

Let me give a shot to your question about the unique characteristics of RDF

1) RDF is based on the idea that the things being described have properties
which have values, and that resources can be described by making statements
2) A Statement is modeled as a Triple (mathematically a model for a
directed labeled edge). The set of triples makes a directed labeled graph.
* The part that identifies the thing the statement is about (a web resource
Web page document or a concept such as an Event, Place etc..) is called the
subject.
* The part that identifies the property or characteristic of the subject
that the statement specifies (creator, creation-date, or language in these
examples) is called the predicate. The predicate is the label of an
directed arc from the subject node to the object node.
* and the part that identifies the value of that property is called the
object.
3) There are three kinds of nodes in RDF model (IRI, Blank Node and Literal
(which can be plain or plain with a language or typed with a datatype).
4) RDF specification uses Web Identifiers based on IRI specification
5) RDF provides a mechanism to make statement about Statement: (reification)
6) RDF introduces concepts of Collection and Container (rdf:List (closed
and ordered), rdf:Bag (open, unordered), rdf:Alt (alternative semantic),
rdf:Seq (ordered)).
8) RDF is syntax-independent and could be serialized into different formats
as long as these formats are isomorphic to RDF model.

My list is not exhaustive, but I hope I captured the essence of the data
model.

Best regards
Stephane




On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 6/24/13 3:52 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Kingsley Idehen
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/24/13 10:32 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>
 If you can give up on all this, what do you take yourself to be
 referring
 to when you say "RDF" ? You have just dismissed virtually every defining
 characteristic of RDF as either wrong or inessential. So what is left?

 Pat

>>> I am going to create a poll aimed as getting a feel for what folks
>>> perceive
>>> as the defining characteristics of RDF. In recent times, I've come to
>>> believe those characteristics aren't so clear anymore.
>>>
>> Kingsley, Kingsley, Kingsley, you old thread hijacker you. ;)  Best of
>> luck, but for the record, I don't have a dog in that fight.  As far as
>> I'm concerned people can use RDF to mean whatever they want it to
>> mean, as long as the software works.
>>
>> -Gregg
>>
>>
>>
>>  Gregg,
>
> There is an issue here that for whatever reasons simply keeps on getting
> lost. The question is simple: what are the unique characteristics of RDF?
> What does RDF do uniquely?
>
> I actually believe RDF does have unique characteristics, but I am curious
> to see if mine are in alignment with views of others.
>
> I really don't want RDF to become something that's based on a leap of
> faith, we can do much better than that :-)
>
>
> --
>
> 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: What Does Point Number 3 of TimBL's Linked Data Mean?

[Stephane Fellah]

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

>  On 6/21/13 3:25 PM, Stephane Fellah wrote:
>
> +1 David.
>
>  It is clear that interoperability of any system is enabled by a set of
> widely adopted standards (similar to TCP/IP for internet, HTTP/URI for the
> Web).  TBL clearly indicated in his revised document that the standards for
> Linked Data are URI, HTTP,  RDF and SPARQL for the query language. I am not
> going to argue with this, like I am not going to argue that HTTP is the
> protocol for hypertext. You may argue that the specs are imperfect, but
> they are truly a solid foundation for SW architecture. The specs can be
> revised and improved other time (such HTTP 1.0,HTTP 1.1, SPARQL 1.1, RDF
> 1.1, OWL 2.0).
>
>  While the writing is TBL's personal opinion, RDF and SPARQL are W3C
> standards. Introducing other standards would break interoperability of the
> system. This would be my last intervention on this subject, as I think I
> explain enough my position. I just do not have the energy and time to keep
> arguing about this topic,as it brings nothing new on the table to improve
> the goal of SW.
>
>
> What part of the excerpt below (from my opening post of this thread)
> contradicts the fact that SPARQL and RDF are W3C standards?
>

I just said they are the standards for Linked Data. You want to call it
implementation details. This is misleading because you imply that it is OK
to use other standards. I think that I differ we you. It is not a detail.
It is the standard so you leverage all the technologies and tools developed
on this foundation.



> What do I mean by RDF and SPARQL are Linked Data implementation details?
>
> I said:
>
> They (RDF and SPARQL) are W3C standards that aid the process of building
> Linked Data (as outlined in the *TimBL's revised meme*). That said, it
> doesn't mean that you cannot take other paths to Linked Data while
> remaining 100% compliant with the essence of *TimBL's original Linked Data
> meme*.
>
>
Let me make an analogy of the current discussion:

The *Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model i*s a conceptual
model<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_model> that
characterizes and standardizes the internal functions of a communications
system <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_system> by partitioning
it into abstraction layers <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_layer>.
This model is used to built the Internet.

Now you come and say:

* TCP/IP is an implementation details of the Internet of the OSI stack.  We
do not need to use TCP/IP to make Internet work, which is true (UDP is an
alternative protocol for example).

What happens if you use something else than TCP/IP today ? You will build
your own implementation of Internet and you will find yourself pretty
isolated because you have no way to interoperate with the widely used
TCP/IP based Internet.  You will have to start from scratch and rebuild all
the set of tools and technologies to leverage your new standards. You
fracture the internet into silos.  What did you accomplish by introducing a
new implementation detail, except saying : Hey look at my awesome internet
implementation that does the same thing that the Internet. If you want to
use it, you have to buy/use all my technology stack ?  Guess what would be
my answer ? Good luck to get your proprietary system widely adopted...

To avoid fracture, you have to agree on widely adopted OPEN standards. By
using OPEN standards, people can built something useful on  stable
foundation on which there is no commercial interest of any kind.  RDF is a
W3C OPEN standard and is widely used today by developers dealing with
Linked Data. There are today a lot of tools available built on these
standards. There is no good incentive to provide an alternative to RDF
model. I cannot see any better and simpler model than the triple model
based on URIs. May be you can enlight me what is wrong with RDF? What your
"enhanced RDF" model is all about? (Keep in mind that RDF can have
different serializations such as JSON-LD, TTL, N3 etc..).

Sincerely
Stephane


>
> *Example:*
>
> DBpedia (and other LInked Data endeavors that leverage Virtuoso or tools
> like Pubby) apply point number three (*either meme version*) as follows:
>
> 1. use HTTP re-write rules to generate SPARQL Protocol URLs
> 2. use content negotiation to align SPARQL protocol URLs with the content
> types requested by an HTTP user agent.
>
> The net effect of the above is as follows:
>
> 1. HTML browsers become Linked Data Browsers -- including IE6 (you can
> follow-your-nose to wherever curiosity takes you without exiting HTML)
> 2. CSV Browsers become Linked Data Browsers -- I've demonstrated this
> using SPARQL-FED based SPARQL protocol URLs that simply return CSV output
&g

Re: What Does Point Number 3 of TimBL's Linked Data Mean?

[Stephane Fellah]

+1 David.

It is clear that interoperability of any system is enabled by a set of
widely adopted standards (similar to TCP/IP for internet, HTTP/URI for the
Web).  TBL clearly indicated in his revised document that the standards for
Linked Data are URI, HTTP,  RDF and SPARQL for the query language. I am not
going to argue with this, like I am not going to argue that HTTP is the
protocol for hypertext. You may argue that the specs are imperfect, but
they are truly a solid foundation for SW architecture. The specs can be
revised and improved other time (such HTTP 1.0,HTTP 1.1, SPARQL 1.1, RDF
1.1, OWL 2.0).

While the writing is TBL's personal opinion, RDF and SPARQL are W3C
standards. Introducing other standards would break interoperability of the
system. This would be my last intervention on this subject, as I think I
explain enough my position. I just do not have the energy and time to keep
arguing about this topic,as it brings nothing new on the table to improve
the goal of SW.

Sincerely
Stephane


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Wood  wrote:

> Hi Kingsley,
>
> I really [1] hate to get drawn on this, but I think that Tim made it
> rather clear with his revised Design Issue document that the standards
> (RDF* and SPARQL) were necessary.  That's why he added them.  I agree.
>
> Now, perhaps we can stop having the same discussion in thirty different
> threads?  Please?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
> [1] *Really!*
>
> On Jun 21, 2013, at 13:06, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Situation Analysis (for additional context):
> >
> > There are two versions of Design Issues documents [1][2] from TimBL
> where the primary topic is Linked Data. Both documents a comprised of four
> bullet points that outline a principled approach to document content
> production and publication en route to a Web of Data.
> >
> > Naturally, for a majority of folks, TimBL's design issue memes
> (irrespective of their clearly stated disclaimers) are deemed authoritative
> with regards to matters relating to Web Architecture and best practices.
> >
> > Current Problem:
> >
> > The fundamental meaning of point three in both Linked Data memes has
> *inadvertently* lead to very strong differences of opinion, with regards to
> interpretation. Here are the two interpretations (that I know of) which
> stand out the most:
> >
> > 1. RDF and SPARQL are implementation details
> > 2. RDF and SPARQL aren't implementation details -- basically, you can't
> produce Linked Data without knowledge and/or a commitment to either.
> >
> > Why do we need to resolve this matter?
> >
> > It has become a distraction at every level, it is basically leading to
> fragmentation where there should be common understanding. For example, some
> of us are more comfortable with RDF and SPARQL as implementation details
> while others aren't (it seems!). This difference of interpretation appears
> insignificant at first blush, but as you drill-down into the many threads
> about this matter we also hit the key issues of *tolerance* vs *dogma*.
> >
> > What do I mean by RDF and SPARQL are Linked Data implementation details?
> >
> > They are W3C standards that aid the process of building Linked Data (as
> outlined in the TimBL's revised meme). That said, it doesn't mean that you
> cannot take other paths to Linked Data while remaining 100% compliant with
> the essence of TimBL's original Linked Data meme.
> >
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > DBpedia (and other LInked Data endeavors that leverage Virtuoso or tools
> like Pubby) apply point number three (either meme version) as follows:
> >
> > 1. use HTTP re-write rules to generate SPARQL Protocol URLs
> > 2. use content negotiation to align SPARQL protocol URLs with the
> content types requested by an HTTP user agent.
> >
> > The net effect of the above is as follows:
> >
> > 1. HTML browsers become Linked Data Browsers -- including IE6 (you can
> follow-your-nose to wherever curiosity takes you without exiting HTML)
> > 2. CSV Browsers become Linked Data Browsers -- I've demonstrated this
> using SPARQL-FED based SPARQL protocol URLs that simply return CSV output
> > 3. RDF processors are exposed to the expanse of Linked Data -- i.e.,
> they have wider access to entities enhanced with an understanding of their
> relationship semantics
> > 4. OWL processors are exposed to the expanse of Linked Data -- ditto ++.
> >
> > Links:
> >
> > 1. http://bit.ly/14gE7wQ -- TimBL's original Linked Data meme
> > 2. http://bit.ly/NvbPLF -- TimBL's revised Linked Data meme
> > 3. http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data -- DBpedia URI for the
> Linked Data concept
> > 4. http://bit.ly/13lcdAM -- Vapor (Linked Data verification utility)
> report for 
> > 5. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Venn diagram illustrating how some of us
> see the relationship between Linked Data, RDF, and Identifiers.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Kingsley Idehen
> > Founder & CEO
> > OpenLi

Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

[Stephane Fellah]

Melvin,

I have no intention to change the title of the document, I just tried to
clarify the interpretation of the 5 stars rating systems. Hopefully I get
it right and I am not the only one in the world to understand it this way :)

Stephane


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Melvin Carvalho
wrote:

>
>
>
> On 21 June 2013 17:32, Stephane Fellah  wrote:
>
>> I agree with you David. Unfortunately the title of rating system (Linked
>> Open Data) is often misinterpreted.
>>
>> The first 3 stars are really describing Open Data. The last two are
>> really Linked Data. A better title could be: "From Data to Linked Data" . I
>> often used the term of "Infocline" to describe the migration from data to
>> knowledge
>>
>
> Well if you're going to change the text of the document, it's not going to
> be that hard to get it to conform to your world view.  Perhaps you find
> this hard to countenance, but please do appreciate that others may not
> share your world view.  The web has always been more about tolerance that
> it has about dogma.  The paradox of the whole thing is that tolerance
> brings people together, and imposing your opinion on others moves people
> apart.  If you feel strongly about rewording the linked data document,
> perhaps start another thread and it may gain some traction.  But as this
> thread was about communication, let's try and be civil and get along :)
>
>
>>
>> Stephane
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM, David Booth  wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/20/2013 02:09 PM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
>>>
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/**DesignIssues/LinkedData.html<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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly.  Read the criteria above for the stars, and think about it.
>>> Suppose a JPEG image is placed on the web with an open license.  Would it
>>> make any sense to call it "Linked Open Data", just because it meets the
>>> criteria for one star?  Certainly not, as that would render the term
>>> completely meaningless.  And as a second example, notice that linking only
>>> comes into play with *five* stars: data meeting the first four stars is not
>>> even linked!  It would not any make sense at all to call something "4-star
>>> Linked Open Data" if it is not even linked!
>>>
>>> The only sensible interpretation of the stars is that they indicate
>>> milestones of progress *toward* "Linked Open Data" -- *not* that there are
>>> five levels of Linked Open Data.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

[Stephane Fellah]

I agree with you David. Unfortunately the title of rating system (Linked
Open Data) is often misinterpreted.

The first 3 stars are really describing Open Data. The last two are really
Linked Data. A better title could be: "From Data to Linked Data" . I often
used the term of "Infocline" to describe the migration from data to
knowledge

Stephane


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM, David Booth  wrote:

> On 06/20/2013 02:09 PM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
>
>> 
>> >
>> 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?
>>
>
> Exactly.  Read the criteria above for the stars, and think about it.
> Suppose a JPEG image is placed on the web with an open license.  Would it
> make any sense to call it "Linked Open Data", just because it meets the
> criteria for one star?  Certainly not, as that would render the term
> completely meaningless.  And as a second example, notice that linking only
> comes into play with *five* stars: data meeting the first four stars is not
> even linked!  It would not any make sense at all to call something "4-star
> Linked Open Data" if it is not even linked!
>
> The only sensible interpretation of the stars is that they indicate
> milestones of progress *toward* "Linked Open Data" -- *not* that there are
> five levels of Linked Open Data.
>
> David
>
>

Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

[Stephane Fellah]

Kingsley,




On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:28 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.
>
>
> 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  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

Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

[Stephane Fellah]

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  wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho  > 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: Vocabulary for weather data logging?

[Stephane Fellah]

Nicholas,

I advice you to look at the latest W3C report about semantic sensor web :
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/ssnx/ssn published recently. I think it
is a solid specification you can start with.

Regards
Stephane Fellah

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Nicholas Humfrey  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am thinking of doing some weather data logging as RDF. Is there an
> existing vocabulary for logging temperature, pressure, wind speed etc ?
>
> I guess that the Event Ontology would be a good starting point.
> http://motools.sourceforge.net/event/event.html
>
> On a related note, how wrong is it to encode the unit of measurement (eg
> Centigrade) as a datatype?
>
>
> nick.
>
>
>

Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

[Stephane Fellah]

Bernard,

Thanks for your answer. Another question I was wondering: Can we extend the
VOAF ontology to describe SKOS taxonomies ? Does this question make sense to
you ?  In the case of SKOS, we have only the notion of concepts not classes
and properties.

Regards
Stephane Fellah

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Bernard Vatant
wrote:

> Hi Stephane
>
> 2011/1/15 Stephane Fellah 
>
> Sounds very interesting initiative. Based on my understanding, I think it
>> should be possible to write a tool that read any OWL document and generate a
>> VOAF document.
>
>
> Indeed I've been thinking along those lines. The current dataset is
> handcrafted as a prototype should be, but I'm indeed thinking now about ways
> to generate the VOAF description automagically from the OWL or RDFS files.
> Devil is in the details, though. Some information you can't really get by
> conventional parsing of the graph, such as which namespaces are used, to
> populate the voaf:reliesOn property. Those you can get by ad hoc syntactic
> scripts, but vocabularies are published using a variety of syntaxes.
>
>
>> May be Swoogle could be a good starting point, but not sure how the API
>> can provide the list of ontology namespaces through the REST API.
>
>
> I don't know either, but I'm sure someone will find a way :)
>
>
>> The imports section would corresponds to the imports statement. The tools
>> would count the number of classes and properties in the ontology namespace.
>> It would be interesting to aggregate all this information and see which
>> vocabularies have the most influence using SNA algorithms.
>
>
> You are welcome to play along those lines. I think there are a lot of
> opportunities and things to discover. This is just the beginning of the
> story.
>
> Best
>
> Bernard
>
>
>
> --
> Bernard Vatant
> Senior Consultant
> Vocabulary & Data Engineering
> Tel:   +33 (0) 971 488 459
> Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com
> 
> Mondeca
> 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
> Web:http://www.mondeca.com
> Blog:http://mondeca.wordpress.com
> 
>

Re: Introducing Vocabularies of a Friend (VOAF)

[Stephane Fellah]

Sounds very interesting initiative. Based on my understanding, I think it
should be possible to write a tool that read any OWL document and generate a
VOAF document. May be Swoogle could be a good starting point, but not sure
how the API can provide the list of ontology namespaces through the REST
API. The imports section would corresponds to the imports statement. The
tools would count the number of classes and properties in the ontology
namespace. It would be interesting to aggregate all this information and see
which vocabularies have the most influence using SNA algorithms.

Best regards
Stephane Fellah


On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

>  On 1/15/11 3:13 AM, Egon Willighagen wrote:
>
> Hi Bernard,
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Bernard Vatant 
>  wrote:
>
>  VOAF is of course a clear homage to FOAF, which is the hub of the network :
> more than half of the listed vocabularies rely on it one way or another.
> I've asked Dan Brickley a couple of days ago if he did not mind this
> friendly hack. Without answer from him, I just went ahead following the
> adage "Qui ne dit mot consent".
>
>  Maybe it's just Saturday morning, but what exactly is the goal of your
> VOAF effort? What problems with existing ontologies does it address?
> Just curious, as it sounds interesting...
>
> Egon
>
>
>  Egon,
>
> If possible, please look at the links I posted in response to Bernard's
> mail.
>
> You can also look at some of my tweets about voaf (Twitter: hastag: #voaf)
> which shows how the following questions can be answered:
>
> 1. What are the sources of terms used in a given vocabulary?
> 2. Who authored the vocabularies in question?
> 3. Which terms are most commonly used, across vocabularies, and when where
> these vocabularies created?
>
> Basically, we have a vocabulary graph endowed with de-referencable URIs
> that provides an extremely powerful mechanism for holistic navigation of the
> LOD cloud or other data spaces (e.g. within enterprise intranets).
>
> All of the above still skims the surface of what VOAF delivers :-)
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen   
> President & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Any objections against using xsd:anySimpleType or rdfs:Literal as the rdfs:range for OWL datatype properties?

[Stephane Fellah]

Sorry I made a type : please read: I think a datatype should NOT only be
restricted to XML schema.

Using xsd:simpleType would discard the case of using XML Literal (for
example a GML encoded Geometry). Literal seems to be a safer bet.
I wish to see in a future version of RDF, a mechanism to valid XML literal
with an XML schema complex type or element.
I think a datatype should NOT only be restricted to XML schema. I have
created and used in many instances custom datatype that could not be
described with XML schema: for example a value with a unit of measure  (
:Box dim:length "10 cm"^^myns:measure ).

Best regards
Stephane Fellah


On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Stephane Fellah  wrote:

> Using xsd:simpleType would discard the case of using XML Literal (for
> example a GML encoded Geometry). Literal seems to be a safer bet.
> I wish to see in a future version of RDF, a mechanism to valid XML literal
> with an XML schema complex type or element.
> I think a datatype should only be restricted to XML schema. I have created
> and used in many instances custom datatype that could not be described with
> XML schema: for example a value with a unit of measure  ( :Box dim:length
> "10 cm"^^myns:measure ).
>
> Best regards
> Stephane Fellah
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Alan Ruttenberg  > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Martin Hepp
>>  wrote:
>> > NB:
>> >
>> > It seems that OWL 2 supports
>> >
>> > DataUnionOf( xsd:float xsd:decimal )
>> >
>> > The question is how broadly current apps and repositories already
>> support
>> > OWL 2, in particular "at Web scale", outside of small, controlled
>> > environments.
>>
>> What would "support" mean? My guess is that unaware applications
>> ignore the datatype.
>>
>> > So I guess rdfs:Literal is the better choice for the moment.
>>
>> I'd probably use the DataUnionOf( xsd:float xsd:double xsd:decimal) if
>> what you want to express is that you are using a numeric type.
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Martin
>> >
>> >
>> > On 23.09.2010, at 20:21, Martin Hepp wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all:
>> >> Thanks! So I understand that for an owl:DatatypeProperty that may hold
>> >> xsd:float, xsd:integer, xsd:int, xsd:double, or xsd:decimal values, the
>> >> simplest solution is rdfs:Literal.
>> >>
>> >> Is that correct?
>> >>
>> >> xsd:decimal would include xsd:integer and xsd:int (?), but there is no
>> >> standard datatype that defines the union of float/double/decimal.
>> >>
>> >> Any other solutions?
>> >>
>> >> Best
>> >>
>> >> Martin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 23.09.2010, at 14:59, Nathan wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Martin Hepp wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Dear all:
>> >>>> Are there any theoretical or practical problems caused by defining
>> the
>> >>>> range of an owl:DatatypeProperty as
>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#anySimpleType
>> >>>
>> >>> RDF Semantics has a good discussion on this at:
>> >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp
>> >>>
>> >>> note that:
>> >>> "The other built-in XML Schema datatypes are unsuitable for various
>> >>> reasons, and SHOULD NOT be used: xsd:duration does not have a
>> well-defined
>> >>> value space (this may be corrected in later revisions of XML Schema
>> >>> datatypes, in which case the revised datatype would be suitable for
>> use in
>> >>> RDF datatyping); xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY require an enclosing XML
>> document
>> >>> context; xsd:ID and xsd:IDREF are for cross references within an XML
>> >>> document; xsd:NOTATION is not intended for direct use; xsd:IDREFS,
>> >>> xsd:ENTITIES and xsd:NMTOKENS are sequence-valued datatypes which do
>> not fit
>> >>> the RDF datatype model."
>> >>>
>> >>> Because a range of xsd:anySimpleType effectively includes/allows the
>> use
>> >>> of xsd:duration and the aforementioned then it may not be the best
>> range.
>> >>>
>> >>> All "afaict" :) Best,
>> >>>
>> >>> Nathan
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: Any objections against using xsd:anySimpleType or rdfs:Literal as the rdfs:range for OWL datatype properties?

[Stephane Fellah]

Using xsd:simpleType would discard the case of using XML Literal (for
example a GML encoded Geometry). Literal seems to be a safer bet.
I wish to see in a future version of RDF, a mechanism to valid XML literal
with an XML schema complex type or element.
I think a datatype should only be restricted to XML schema. I have created
and used in many instances custom datatype that could not be described with
XML schema: for example a value with a unit of measure  ( :Box dim:length
"10 cm"^^myns:measure ).

Best regards
Stephane Fellah

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Martin Hepp
>  wrote:
> > NB:
> >
> > It seems that OWL 2 supports
> >
> > DataUnionOf( xsd:float xsd:decimal )
> >
> > The question is how broadly current apps and repositories already support
> > OWL 2, in particular "at Web scale", outside of small, controlled
> > environments.
>
> What would "support" mean? My guess is that unaware applications
> ignore the datatype.
>
> > So I guess rdfs:Literal is the better choice for the moment.
>
> I'd probably use the DataUnionOf( xsd:float xsd:double xsd:decimal) if
> what you want to express is that you are using a numeric type.
>
> -Alan
>
>
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > On 23.09.2010, at 20:21, Martin Hepp wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all:
> >> Thanks! So I understand that for an owl:DatatypeProperty that may hold
> >> xsd:float, xsd:integer, xsd:int, xsd:double, or xsd:decimal values, the
> >> simplest solution is rdfs:Literal.
> >>
> >> Is that correct?
> >>
> >> xsd:decimal would include xsd:integer and xsd:int (?), but there is no
> >> standard datatype that defines the union of float/double/decimal.
> >>
> >> Any other solutions?
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >> On 23.09.2010, at 14:59, Nathan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Martin Hepp wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear all:
> >>>> Are there any theoretical or practical problems caused by defining the
> >>>> range of an owl:DatatypeProperty as
> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#anySimpleType
> >>>
> >>> RDF Semantics has a good discussion on this at:
> >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp
> >>>
> >>> note that:
> >>> "The other built-in XML Schema datatypes are unsuitable for various
> >>> reasons, and SHOULD NOT be used: xsd:duration does not have a
> well-defined
> >>> value space (this may be corrected in later revisions of XML Schema
> >>> datatypes, in which case the revised datatype would be suitable for use
> in
> >>> RDF datatyping); xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY require an enclosing XML
> document
> >>> context; xsd:ID and xsd:IDREF are for cross references within an XML
> >>> document; xsd:NOTATION is not intended for direct use; xsd:IDREFS,
> >>> xsd:ENTITIES and xsd:NMTOKENS are sequence-valued datatypes which do
> not fit
> >>> the RDF datatype model."
> >>>
> >>> Because a range of xsd:anySimpleType effectively includes/allows the
> use
> >>> of xsd:duration and the aforementioned then it may not be the best
> range.
> >>>
> >>> All "afaict" :) Best,
> >>>
> >>> Nathan
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Subjects as Literals

[Stephane Fellah]

Hi,

I just want to throw my 2 cents in this discussion. I posted a comment in
October 2004 related to "Smart Literal"proposal in Jena Discussion Group.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jena-dev/message/11581

Best regards
Stephane Fellah
smartRealm LLC

<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jena-dev/message/11581>

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Pat Hayes  wrote:
>
> 3. Dates represented as character strings in some known date format other
>> than XSD can be asserted to be the same as a 'real' date by writing things
>> like
>>
>> "01-02-1481" sameDateAs "01022010"^^xsd:date .
>> "01-02-1481" isDateIn :MuslimCalendar .
>>
>
>
> This is a great example of what is wrong with the proposal! :)
>
> Either, the literals stand by themselves and each occurrence of
> "01-02-1481" is a completely separate instance (and in the current syntax
> would get a unique identifier), or *all* occurrences of the literal can be
> conflated together.  The distinction between a token and a type,
> respectively.
>
> Option 1: Literal as Token
> If each is its own token (unique identifiers) then one string is the same
> as the date given, and a completely different string is in the Muslim
> calendar.
>
> eg:
>
> urn:uuid1 hasValue "01-02-1481"
> urn:uuid1 sameDateAs "01022010"^^xsd:date
>
> urn:uuid2 hasValue "01-02-1481"
> urn:uuid2 isDateIn :MuslimCalendar
>
> This makes the proposal pointless, as you can't express two statements
> about the same literal subject.  The only thing you can do is express the
> inverse of existing properties... at the expense of complexity and the
> burden of unnecessary choice. (title is easy as the only way to do it,
> adding isTitleOf gains us nothing we couldn't already express)
>
>
> Option 2: Literal as Type
> However, if all occurrences of that string are the same entity and can be
> merged together, then we also have:
>
> "01-02-1481" sameDateAs "1481-02-01"^^xsd:date .// ddmm
> "01-02-1481" sameDateAs "1481-01-02"^^xsd:date .// mmdd
> "01-02-1481" isDateIn :RomanCalendar
>
> This also makes the proposal pointless as you cannot say anything
> meaningful which is globally true about a literal.  That same string is at
> least three different dates in two different calendars. Drat that pesky
> global truth requirement!
>
> The only way that Pat's example makes sense is if the context of the
> literal is constrained to the current named graph.  If there was interest in
> "fixing" RDF, then making Named Graphs a core feature would be my first
> agenda item!
>
> Rob Sanderson
>
>

Re: Some Linked Data vocab questions: Street Address

[Stephane Fellah]

Just FYI, XAL is also used in by Google Maps KML.
http://code.google.com/apis/kml/documentation/kmlreference.html

<http://code.google.com/apis/kml/documentation/kmlreference.html>Stephane

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Stephane Fellah  wrote:

> Hi Aldo,
>
> Your best shot for modeling address is to build an ontology based on the XAL
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6>(Extensible Address
> Language) from OASIS. It covers more than 200 countries address. You can
> find schema at : http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/download.html
> and a sample data at:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/download.html
> Hope that help.
>
> Stephane Fellah
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Aldo Bucchi wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need to pick a property to specify a generic address attached to a
>> thing ( person, building, service, etc ). It can be clean as in "Foo
>> Bar streed N 54" or "Near the beach".
>> What vocab would you use?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Aldo Bucchi
>> skype:aldo.bucchi
>> http://www.univrz.com/
>> http://aldobucchi.com/
>>
>> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
>> This message is only for the use of the individual or entity to which it
>> is
>> addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
>> If
>> you are not the intended recipient, please do not distribute or copy this
>> communication, by e-mail or otherwise. Instead, please notify us
>> immediately by
>> return e-mail.
>>
>>
>

Re: Some Linked Data vocab questions: Street Address

[Stephane Fellah]

Hi Aldo,

Your best shot for modeling address is to build an ontology based on the XAL
<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6>(Extensible Address
Language) from OASIS. It covers more than 200 countries address. You can
find schema at : http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/download.html
and a sample data at:http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/download.html
Hope that help.

Stephane Fellah


On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Aldo Bucchi  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I need to pick a property to specify a generic address attached to a
> thing ( person, building, service, etc ). It can be clean as in "Foo
> Bar streed N 54" or "Near the beach".
> What vocab would you use?
>
> Thanks!
> A
>
> --
> Aldo Bucchi
> skype:aldo.bucchi
> http://www.univrz.com/
> http://aldobucchi.com/
>
> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
> This message is only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
> addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
> If
> you are not the intended recipient, please do not distribute or copy this
> communication, by e-mail or otherwise. Instead, please notify us
> immediately by
> return e-mail.
>
>

Re: Crowdsourcing request: Google People Finder Data as RDF

[Stephane Fellah]

Hi,

I am interested to help for this project.  I have about than 10 years
experience with semantic web technology and it is my dog food everyday. I
had the idea of doing it during the Haiti Earthquake. I looked at the People
Finder Interchange Format (PFIF) that is used by google
http://zesty.ca/pfif/1.2/ . The problem is XML format is mainly its fixed
structure and its difficulty to extend it for specific purpose (like
address).
I would be interested to work on developing core ontology that would fix the
defect of PFIF and then use it as a foundation to develop extensions. There
are other ontologies that could be taken in account such as Sahana
http://ontology.nursix.org/sahana-person.owl.I think it is important we
do it right that just going to a straight conversion from PFIF format. It
requires some effort but it should pay off in the long term.
I would appreciate if you can tell me where to start (forum, wiki, code base
...etc)

Best regards
Stephane Fellah



On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Bill Roberts  wrote:

> Hi Aldo - I'd like to help, but I see you posted your mail a few hours ago.
>  Do you have updated information on what still needs done?  Do you have a
> wiki or similar to coordinate volunteer programming efforts?
>
> Regards
>
> Bill
>
>
> On 4 Mar 2010, at 14:06, Aldo Bucchi wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As most of you heard things were a bit shaky down here in Chile. We
> > have some requests and hope you guys can help. This is a moment to
> > prove what we always boast about: that Linked Data can solve real
> > problems.
> >
> > Google provides a prople finder service
> > (http://chilepersonfinder.appspot.com/) which is right now
> > centralizing some ( but not all ) of the missing people data. This
> > service is OK but it lacks some features plus we need to integrate
> > with other sources to perform analysis and aid our rescue teams /
> > alleviate families.
> >
> > This is serious matter but it is indeed taken a bti lightly by
> > existing software. ( there is a tradeoff between the amount of
> > structure you can impose and ease of use in the front-line ).
> >
> > What we would love to have is a way to access all feeds from
> > <http://chilepersonfinder.appspot.com/> as RDF
> >
> > We already have some databases operating on these feeds, but we're
> > still far away a clean solution because of its loose structure ( take
> > a look and you'll see what I mean ).
> >
> > Who wants to take a shot at this?
> >
> > Requirements.
> > - Take all feeds originating from <http://chilepersonfinder.appspot.com/
> >
> > - Generate an initial RDF dump ( big TTL file )
> > - Generate Incremental RDF dumps every hour
> >
> > The transfromation should do its best guess at the ideal data
> > structure and try not to loose granularity but shield us a bit from
> > this feed based model.
> >
> > We then take care of downloading this, integrating with other systems,
> > further processing, geocoding, etc.
> >
> > There's a lot of work to do and the more we can outsource, the bettter.
> >
> > On Friday ( tomorrow ) there will be the first nation-wide
> > announcement of our search platform and we expect lots of people to
> > use our services. So this is something really urgent and really,
> > really important for those who need it.
> >
> > Ah. Volunteers are moving all this data into a Virtuoso instance that
> > will also have more stuff. It will be available soon at
> > http://opendata.cl/ so stay tuned.
> >
> > We really hope we had something like DBpedia in place by now, it would
> > make all this much easier. But now is the time.
> > Guys, the tsunami casualties could have been avoided it was all about
> > mis-information.
> > Same goes for relief efforts. They are not optimal and this is all
> > about data in the end.
> >
> > I know you know how valuable data is. But it is now that you can
> > really make your point! Triple by Triple.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > A
> >
> > --
> > Aldo Bucchi
> > skype:aldo.bucchi
> > http://www.univrz.com/
> > http://aldobucchi.com/
> >
> > PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
> > This message is only for the use of the individual or entity to which it
> is
> > addressed and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential. If
> > you are not the intended recipient, please do not distribute or copy this
> > communication, by e-mail or otherwise. Instead, please notify us
> immediately by
> > return e-mail.
> >
>
>
>