Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Hi, Yes. PDF: http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/linked-data-patterns.pdf EPUB: http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/linked-data-patterns.epub Cheers, L. 2010/4/13 Pierre-Antoine Champin : > Wonderful. > > Any PDF version available? > > pa > > On 06/04/2010 16:10, Leigh Dodds wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> Ian Davis and I have been working on a catalogue of Linked Data >> patterns which we've put on-line as a free book. The work is licensed >> under a Creative Commons attribution license. >> >> This is is still a very early draft but already contains 30 patterns >> covering identifiers, modelling, publishing and consuming Linked Data. >> >> http://patterns.dataincubator.org >> >> More background at [1]. We'd be interested to hear your comments, and >> hope that it can become a useful resource for the growing community of >> practitioners. >> >> Cheers, >> >> L. >> >> [1]. >> http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2010/04/linked-data-patterns-a-free-book-for-practitioners/ >> > > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/ > shared innovation™ > > Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those > of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message > and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of the > intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please > return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an > unauthorised recipient is prohibited. > > Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is > registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights Court, > Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB. > -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Wonderful. Any PDF version available? pa On 06/04/2010 16:10, Leigh Dodds wrote: > Hi folks, > > Ian Davis and I have been working on a catalogue of Linked Data > patterns which we've put on-line as a free book. The work is licensed > under a Creative Commons attribution license. > > This is is still a very early draft but already contains 30 patterns > covering identifiers, modelling, publishing and consuming Linked Data. > > http://patterns.dataincubator.org > > More background at [1]. We'd be interested to hear your comments, and > hope that it can become a useful resource for the growing community of > practitioners. > > Cheers, > > L. > > [1]. > http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2010/04/linked-data-patterns-a-free-book-for-practitioners/ >
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Hi, 2010/4/8 Damian Steer : > > On 6 Apr 2010, at 17:10, Leigh Dodds wrote: > >>> Any plans to make this a wiki so other people can contribute or at least >>> comment? >> >> Ian and I debated this for some time, considering both a blog and a >> wiki. My preference was to kick things off with a site/book as we have >> done here. > > You could upload the source to github and use pull requests for editorial > review. Bit geeky, but when in Rome etc. Yes that occurred to me too. I've been managing the text in a github project here: http://github.com/ldodds/ld-patterns Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
On 6 Apr 2010, at 17:10, Leigh Dodds wrote: >> Any plans to make this a wiki so other people can contribute or at least >> comment? > > Ian and I debated this for some time, considering both a blog and a > wiki. My preference was to kick things off with a site/book as we have > done here. You could upload the source to github and use pull requests for editorial review. Bit geeky, but when in Rome etc. Damian
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Hi Aldo, 2010/4/7 Aldo Gangemi : > Hi Leigh, good news :) > Some obvious links between your list of "modelling patterns", and the > "content" and "logical" pattern catalogues in ODP: I'll include these links. Can you point me at human-readable pages for the vocabularies/content patterns? I'd prefer to link to such a page rather than directly into an ontology. Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
On 7 April 2010 20:07, Vasiliy Faronov wrote: > Peter Ansell wrote: >> If there was an annotation, there should be an equivalency >> relationship defined to the original URI, so Y would link back to X, >> and Z would link back to Y, and possibly X. > > But if Y and Z are for two independent annotations of X, should they > link to each other? > > If yes, I don't see how really different this is from linking X to the > documents containing the annotations (rdfs:seeAlso). Both ways rely on > some publisher(s) being willing to link to some extraneous data. > Moreover, in the X-only case, only the original authority needs to do > that, whereas in the many-URI case, we need multiple links all over the > place to connect the annotations to each other and make them > discoverable. It is not necessarily a technical issue. It is also not necessarily extraneous data. If all original authorities were open to adding links to any annotations then there wouldn't be an issue, but as they are not necessrily that open to the idea, it would be nice to emphasise that they do not have to be involved in the process. Sure it is simpler if they do... > If no, then neither Y nor Z are discoverable from anywhere in the LD > web, and there's no need to mint these URIs in the first place. I don't see why Y and Z shouldn't link to each other, if they know about each other. It may be a social issue still, as the independent annotations may still not accept each other. Cheers, Peter
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Hi Leigh, good news :) Some obvious links between your list of "modelling patterns", and the "content" and "logical" pattern catalogues in ODP: - Ordering relation [1] can be linked to the OWL small vocabulary (we call those task-oriented, small vocabularies "content patterns"): sequence.owl [2] - N-Ary relation [3] has several counterparts: the W3C SWBPD note on n- ary relations [4], the content pattern situation.owl [5], and other content patterns for specific classes of n-ary relations (participation, classification, part-of, membership, etc.) that can be found in the ODP portal - Topic relation [6] can be linked to the OWL small vocabulary: topic.owl [7] Moreover, it seems that the other types of patterns you have singled out: "identifier", "application" and "publishing" were partly covered in the literature about ontology design patterns (our tutorial at [8] is a pragmatic starting point), but no place has been created yet in the portal, specially for the sake of linked data-oriented practices: it'd be great if anyone would create space for them in ODP, where there is dedicated support for semantic wiki forms, and semantic management of reviewing and discussions. Aldo [1] http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/ordering-relation.html [2] http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/sequence.owl [3] http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/nary-relation.html [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/ [5] http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/situation.owl [6] http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/topic-relation.html [7] http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/topic.owl [8] http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Training:PhD_Course_on_Computational_Ontologies_%40_University_of_Bologna On 7 Apr 2010, at 10:55, Leigh Dodds wrote: Hi, On 6 April 2010 20:46:21 UTC+1, François Scharffe wrote: Hi, OntologyDesignPatterns.org is indeed the place to discuss ontology patterns. It's also good to know which patterns are useful in practice, and linked-data vocab patterns are used in vocabs that are themselves effectively used to describe data. The "known uses" field is actually empty for most patterns on the ODP portal, this should evolve as vocabularies are designed using patterns. Let's explicit links between the two efforts! Yes, I'll add in links to the wiki where there is an equivalent pattern. I'd also encourage everyone here to contribute there, particularly to help fill in the gaps around "known uses". Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com _ Aldo Gangemi Senior Researcher Semantic Technology Lab (STLab) Institute for Cognitive Science and Technology, National Research Council (ISTC-CNR) Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy Tel: +390644161535 Fax: +390644161513 aldo.gang...@cnr.it http://www.stlab.istc.cnr.it http://www.istc.cnr.it/createhtml.php?nbr=71 skype aldogangemi
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Peter Ansell wrote: > If there was an annotation, there should be an equivalency > relationship defined to the original URI, so Y would link back to X, > and Z would link back to Y, and possibly X. But if Y and Z are for two independent annotations of X, should they link to each other? If yes, I don't see how really different this is from linking X to the documents containing the annotations (rdfs:seeAlso). Both ways rely on some publisher(s) being willing to link to some extraneous data. Moreover, in the X-only case, only the original authority needs to do that, whereas in the many-URI case, we need multiple links all over the place to connect the annotations to each other and make them discoverable. If no, then neither Y nor Z are discoverable from anywhere in the LD web, and there's no need to mint these URIs in the first place. -- Vasiliy Faronov
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Interesting exchange Following Ian here to say that quads are not necessary. There are some workarounds coming to mind. Any linked data consumer can at any moment dereference the URI to sort out the original (aka authoritative) description triples from those asserted by some other source. When mashing/meshing descriptions from different sources, if one does not want to nitpick on who said what, but wants to keep track of the used sources nevertheless, using dcterms:source at either RDF document or resource level can do it. Keeping rdfs:isDefinedBy for the original source as asserted by the URI reference if needed. Bernard Ian Davis > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Peter Ansell > wrote: > > > "It is entirely consistent with the Linked Data principles to make > > statements about third-party resources." > > > > I don't believe that to be true, simply because, unless users are > > always using a quad model (RDF+NamedGraphs), they have no way of > > retrieving that information just by resolving the foreign identifier > > which is the subject of the RDF triple. They would have to stumble on > > the information by knowing to retrieve the object URI, which isn't > > clear from the pattern description so far. In a triples model it is > > harmful to have this pattern as Linked Data, as the statements are not > > discoverable just knowing the URI. > > > > Can you elaborate more on the harm you suggest here? > > I don't think we need to limit the data published about a subject to > that subset retrievable at its URI. (I wrote a little about this last > year at http://blog.iandavis.com/2009/10/more-than-the-minimum ) > > I also don't believe this requires the use of quads. I think it can be > interlinked using rdfs:seeAlso. > > -- 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: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Hi, On 6 April 2010 20:46:21 UTC+1, François Scharffe wrote: > Hi, > > OntologyDesignPatterns.org is indeed the place to discuss ontology > patterns. It's also good to know which patterns are useful in practice, > and linked-data vocab patterns are used in vocabs that are themselves > effectively used to describe data. The "known uses" field is actually > empty for most patterns on the ODP portal, this should evolve as > vocabularies are designed using patterns. Let's explicit links between > the two efforts! Yes, I'll add in links to the wiki where there is an equivalent pattern. I'd also encourage everyone here to contribute there, particularly to help fill in the gaps around "known uses". Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com
[Patterns] Annotation (was Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book)
Hi, Have changed the subject line to clarify the discussion. On 7 April 2010 00:14:15 UTC+1, Peter Ansell wrote: > In the Annotation publishing pattern section there is the following statement: > > "It is entirely consistent with the Linked Data principles to make > statements about third-party resources." > > I don't believe that to be true, simply because, unless users are > always using a quad model (RDF+NamedGraphs), they have no way of > retrieving that information just by resolving the foreign identifier > which is the subject of the RDF triple. Yes, the data won't be directly accessible from the original URI. But it may be indirectly accessible by following an explicit link to the Annotation data (the See Also pattern) introduced by the publisher, or through the use of additional web services, e.g. Sindice, etc. My assertion is that so long as the data can be found by following hypertext links, then the data is still part of the overall web of data. Clearly the downside is that there are some overheads (publisher adding links; use of extra sources). The pattern description should make this more explicit. btw, I wrote a blog post about this topic recently [1]. I think there are trade-offs with both approaches: * Mint new URIs -- requires more infrastructure (to publish), requires reasoning (to merge), but data is discoverable by de-referencing * Annotate -- easier to publish, merges easily, but requires more infrastructure or co-ordination for data to be discoverable > If the idea of the book is to point to quads as the preferred model > for publishing Linked Data then it may be okay because the named graph > is in each statement to indicate where the statement came from so > users just have to recognise that URIs in triples are not linked to > retrieval locations, and they should keep the quad extension and use > that for retrieval. It seems like a stretch to have this as a valid > alternative instead of the easier (in Linked Data terms) pattern of > creating new URI's that are equivalent to the other URI, just with one > or more extra statements. I don't really see how Named Graphs are relevant here. And I'm certainly not advocating that everyone has to publish their data in that way. > In the Equivalent Links publishing pattern section there is the > following statement: > > "The relations allow for more fuzzy notions of equivalence and have > weaker semantics: skos:exactMatch declares two concepts to be the same > but doesn't imply that all statements about one concept are also true > of another." > > Should indicate there that SKOS implies that all of the URIs are > philosophically just concepts such as those that exist in taxonomies. > To use skos:exactMatch one has to follow the SKOS model through or it > doesn't fit, as with the OWL model. Yes, good point. Understanding proper role of SKOS and OWL is something that needs addressing. Cheers, L. [1]. http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2009/12/annotated-data/ -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com
[Patterns] Annotation (was Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book)
Hi, On 7 April 2010 01:08:32 UTC+1, Peter Ansell wrote: > In my opinion, we should be recommending that people create new URI's > so that others have enough information to be able to choose whether to > go there based on the DNS authority or some other method, even if > there are new URI's created. Basically, I am pro, having multiple > URI's for things, based on who is publishing the information so that > the information can be discoverable without some external authority > authorising the statement to be discoverable. In the future, if and/or > when Linked Data is subsumed by some sort of Federated SPARQL > methodology as a best practice, it may be okay to reuse URI's, as > there may be some other mechanism of locating the statement using a > metadata repository. Until then, Linked Data URI's are the only widely > used method, and the resolution of the statement is necessarily > controlled by whoever controls the DNS authority. I think we have to recognise that there are multiple approaches and guide & educate people about the trade-offs involved. Personally I'm keen to see more reuse of identifiers and use of hypermedia to inter-link between different sources. I'd also prefer to see people publish more data, and if Annotation is a lower barrier to entry, then fine, we can create infrastructure to support that. It's important to recognise that even in your preferred scenario (Proxy URIs and Equivalence Linking) we still need more infrastructure to get the most from the data, e.g. SameAs.org. Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Ian Davis wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Peter Ansell wrote: >> In the Annotation publishing pattern section there is the following >> statement: >> >> "It is entirely consistent with the Linked Data principles to make >> statements about third-party resources." >> >> I don't believe that to be true, simply because, unless users are >> always using a quad model (RDF+NamedGraphs), they have no way of >> retrieving that information just by resolving the foreign identifier >> which is the subject of the RDF triple. They would have to stumble on >> the information by knowing to retrieve the object URI, which isn't >> clear from the pattern description so far. In a triples model it is >> harmful to have this pattern as Linked Data, as the statements are not >> discoverable just knowing the URI. >> > > Can you elaborate more on the harm you suggest here? > > I don't think we need to limit the data published about a subject to > that subset retrievable at its URI. (I wrote a little about this last > year at http://blog.iandavis.com/2009/10/more-than-the-minimum ) > > I also don't believe this requires the use of quads. I think it can be > interlinked using rdfs:seeAlso. I've been plugging that idea for ages, http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2003/12/dan_brickleys_rdfsseealso_rdf.html Something like http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/talks/xml2003/slide9-3.html Dan Brickley LOD added to this a hearty enthusiasm for URIs everywhere, and a *lot* of data; but I don't think we can avoid things having multiple descriptions in different documents, whether exported from one database or several. In fact the lovely thing about RDF is that you can superimpose data graphs very easily. What we haven't really explored properly yet is giving types to these RDF documents, although there have been lots of experiments (schemarama etc). Dan
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
On 7 April 2010 10:31, Vasiliy Faronov wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for your perspective--this problem is something I haven't > considered before. But let me bring up a question. > > Suppose we have the resource (URI) X, which is the original resource > that the annotations are all about. Someone comes around and publishes > an annotation about X, using a newly minted URI Y (owl:sameAs X). > > Y conforms perfectly to the Linked Data model: you can dereference Y and > get the annotation for X, then follow the owl:sameAs link and get the > "authoritative" description of X. > > But the question is: where else in the Linked Data graph would we find > references to Y? Since everyone wishing to annotate X mints their own > URIs, we end up with a number of equivalent URIs that all point to X, > but are themselves not pointed to. In other words: using URI Y in a > description would constitue an annotation, and thus, according to your > model, warrant minting a new URI Z. So, even though Y can be linked to, > nobody actually ends up doing this. > > Maybe I'm missing some other uses for Y? If there was an annotation, there should be an equivalency relationship defined to the original URI, so Y would link back to X, and Z would link back to Y, and possibly X. To review: * The major reason for not wanting to do this is that it requires reasoning processes to infer the relationship between Z and both Y and X. * The major reasoning for wanting to do it is that non-authoritative sources can be referred to, and the references can be resolved using Linked Data principles, without requiring the original authority to participate, as they may not want to do so for any number of social or technical reasons. * My contention is that it is not a good idea to promote the idea that everyone use X in their documents, if the statements are not going to be resolvable using the URI's in the statement, as they would be if people used Y and Z. I guess it is a fundamental mistrust in the social aspects of the Linked Data X-only system that requires everyone to accept everyone elses ideas. This mistrust does however have practical benefits, as it results in a system where statements are resolvable using information in the statements, so there are social benefits to the system. In my opinion, the benefit of creating Y is to provide accessibility while we are still emphasising direct HTTP GET resolution above other future recommendations such as pinging multiple SPARQL endpoints for information in order to resolve a URI. If distributed querying was common than a sole URI, Y, would be useful, as there would not be a simple one to one restriction between Y and *the* authoritative document describing Y because a user could compile their own document using their trusted endpoints (or simply all endpoints if they have no trust opinions). Cheers, Peter
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Hi Peter, Thanks for your perspective--this problem is something I haven't considered before. But let me bring up a question. Suppose we have the resource (URI) X, which is the original resource that the annotations are all about. Someone comes around and publishes an annotation about X, using a newly minted URI Y (owl:sameAs X). Y conforms perfectly to the Linked Data model: you can dereference Y and get the annotation for X, then follow the owl:sameAs link and get the "authoritative" description of X. But the question is: where else in the Linked Data graph would we find references to Y? Since everyone wishing to annotate X mints their own URIs, we end up with a number of equivalent URIs that all point to X, but are themselves not pointed to. In other words: using URI Y in a description would constitue an annotation, and thus, according to your model, warrant minting a new URI Z. So, even though Y can be linked to, nobody actually ends up doing this. Maybe I'm missing some other uses for Y? -- Vasiliy Faronov
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
On 7 April 2010 09:31, Ian Davis wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Peter Ansell wrote: >> In the Annotation publishing pattern section there is the following >> statement: >> >> "It is entirely consistent with the Linked Data principles to make >> statements about third-party resources." >> >> I don't believe that to be true, simply because, unless users are >> always using a quad model (RDF+NamedGraphs), they have no way of >> retrieving that information just by resolving the foreign identifier >> which is the subject of the RDF triple. They would have to stumble on >> the information by knowing to retrieve the object URI, which isn't >> clear from the pattern description so far. In a triples model it is >> harmful to have this pattern as Linked Data, as the statements are not >> discoverable just knowing the URI. >> > > Can you elaborate more on the harm you suggest here? > > I don't think we need to limit the data published about a subject to > that subset retrievable at its URI. (I wrote a little about this last > year at http://blog.iandavis.com/2009/10/more-than-the-minimum ) > > I also don't believe this requires the use of quads. I think it can be > interlinked using rdfs:seeAlso. For the interlinks to be useful, they would have to be incorporated by the original producer, ie, the one that publishers the basic Linked Data statements, and that doesn't need to be the case if people create their own URI's to match the other URI's. There is no difference in their discoverability, and there is the risk that if one uses the original URI, that the original producer will snub them, so the statement will not be discovered. I don't really see how it is natively Linked Data if there is a case where there is the likelihood a consistent circle of resolution. To be consistent a user would have to be able to get back to the statement just using the Linked Data URI, imo, although the actual specification doesn't indicate this. Technically the book is possibly correct, as "some" statements come from resolution of the URI if it is Linked Data compatible in its own right. My issue is that the statement that a user had originally is not able to be found if the original publisher chose not to include the equivalence or see also statement, and I don't think we should be promoting situations where this information loss will occur at the whim of some other authority without any way of rediscovering the statement. As one example, there was a recent discussion that suggested DBpedia should not include any links to other datasets if the link is not derived from Wikipedia. What is to stop other projects that reach a critical mass on their own from doing the same and still being referred to as Linked Data due to mass of inbound links, even if there are not many outbound links comparatively. In my opinion, we should be recommending that people create new URI's so that others have enough information to be able to choose whether to go there based on the DNS authority or some other method, even if there are new URI's created. Basically, I am pro, having multiple URI's for things, based on who is publishing the information so that the information can be discoverable without some external authority authorising the statement to be discoverable. In the future, if and/or when Linked Data is subsumed by some sort of Federated SPARQL methodology as a best practice, it may be okay to reuse URI's, as there may be some other mechanism of locating the statement using a metadata repository. Until then, Linked Data URI's are the only widely used method, and the resolution of the statement is necessarily controlled by whoever controls the DNS authority. Cheers, Peter
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Peter Ansell wrote: > In the Annotation publishing pattern section there is the following statement: > > "It is entirely consistent with the Linked Data principles to make > statements about third-party resources." > > I don't believe that to be true, simply because, unless users are > always using a quad model (RDF+NamedGraphs), they have no way of > retrieving that information just by resolving the foreign identifier > which is the subject of the RDF triple. They would have to stumble on > the information by knowing to retrieve the object URI, which isn't > clear from the pattern description so far. In a triples model it is > harmful to have this pattern as Linked Data, as the statements are not > discoverable just knowing the URI. > Can you elaborate more on the harm you suggest here? I don't think we need to limit the data published about a subject to that subset retrievable at its URI. (I wrote a little about this last year at http://blog.iandavis.com/2009/10/more-than-the-minimum ) I also don't believe this requires the use of quads. I think it can be interlinked using rdfs:seeAlso. Ian
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
In the Annotation publishing pattern section there is the following statement: "It is entirely consistent with the Linked Data principles to make statements about third-party resources." I don't believe that to be true, simply because, unless users are always using a quad model (RDF+NamedGraphs), they have no way of retrieving that information just by resolving the foreign identifier which is the subject of the RDF triple. They would have to stumble on the information by knowing to retrieve the object URI, which isn't clear from the pattern description so far. In a triples model it is harmful to have this pattern as Linked Data, as the statements are not discoverable just knowing the URI. If the idea of the book is to point to quads as the preferred model for publishing Linked Data then it may be okay because the named graph is in each statement to indicate where the statement came from so users just have to recognise that URIs in triples are not linked to retrieval locations, and they should keep the quad extension and use that for retrieval. It seems like a stretch to have this as a valid alternative instead of the easier (in Linked Data terms) pattern of creating new URI's that are equivalent to the other URI, just with one or more extra statements. In the Equivalent Links publishing pattern section there is the following statement: "The relations allow for more fuzzy notions of equivalence and have weaker semantics: skos:exactMatch declares two concepts to be the same but doesn't imply that all statements about one concept are also true of another." Should indicate there that SKOS implies that all of the URIs are philosophically just concepts such as those that exist in taxonomies. To use skos:exactMatch one has to follow the SKOS model through or it doesn't fit, as with the OWL model. Could also explain that mixing OWL and SKOS may not be desirable as SKOS puts importance on URI's and logical statements where OWL completely abstracts over URI's, so there is no knowing whether statements actually originally contained the URI, or whether they were published using the proxy pattern and infact some statements should be interpreted just using the SKOS model and doing it using the SKOS model would be inconsistent with the original idea. In some cases the equivalent links used with the Annotation pattern meana that publishers do not necessarily have control over the statements using their Linked Data URI's, although others may use their URI's to imply different things. Explaining this lack of authority may be good, or could change the recommendations about the Annotation publishing pattern so that users are not encouraged to add extra statements directly to other resources without using some sort of equivalence that requires some sort of reasoning (eg, OWL) to take away the reliance on the original Linked Data URI's that are used to get to the RDF statements. Cheers, Peter On 7 April 2010 01:10, Leigh Dodds wrote: > Hi folks, > > Ian Davis and I have been working on a catalogue of Linked Data > patterns which we've put on-line as a free book. The work is licensed > under a Creative Commons attribution license. > > This is is still a very early draft but already contains 30 patterns > covering identifiers, modelling, publishing and consuming Linked Data. > > http://patterns.dataincubator.org > > More background at [1]. We'd be interested to hear your comments, and > hope that it can become a useful resource for the growing community of > practitioners. > > Cheers, > > L. > > [1]. > http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2010/04/linked-data-patterns-a-free-book-for-practitioners/ > > -- > Leigh Dodds > Programme Manager, Talis Platform > Talis > leigh.do...@talis.com > http://www.talis.com > >
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Hi, OntologyDesignPatterns.org is indeed the place to discuss ontology patterns. It's also good to know which patterns are useful in practice, and linked-data vocab patterns are used in vocabs that are themselves effectively used to describe data. The "known uses" field is actually empty for most patterns on the ODP portal, this should evolve as vocabularies are designed using patterns. Let's explicit links between the two efforts! Cheers, François Dave Reynolds wrote: Hi Leigh, On 06/04/2010 16:10, Leigh Dodds wrote: Hi folks, Ian Davis and I have been working on a catalogue of Linked Data patterns which we've put on-line as a free book. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution license. This is is still a very early draft but already contains 30 patterns covering identifiers, modelling, publishing and consuming Linked Data. http://patterns.dataincubator.org More background at [1]. We'd be interested to hear your comments, and hope that it can become a useful resource for the growing community of practitioners. Looks like a great start, well done! It would be nice to see some reference to, and inclusion of, the patterns than came out of SWBP. E.g. you currently seem to have one variant of the three n-ary relation patterns and I couldn't spot the classes-as-subjects pattern (but maybe didn't look hard enough). Might also want to reference the ontology design patterns portal [1] which has some patterns relevant to the modelling section. Any plans to make this a wiki so other people can contribute or at least comment? Dave [1] http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Main_Page
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Hi, On 6 April 2010 16:56, Dave Reynolds wrote: >> .. >> http://patterns.dataincubator.org >> >> More background at [1]. We'd be interested to hear your comments, and >> hope that it can become a useful resource for the growing community of >> practitioners. > > Looks like a great start, well done! Thank Dave. > It would be nice to see some reference to, and inclusion of, the > patterns than came out of SWBP. E.g. you currently seem to have one > variant of the three n-ary relation patterns and I couldn't spot the > classes-as-subjects pattern (but maybe didn't look hard enough). Yes, there's a some missing references to add in. Actually I think I have two of the variants: N-Ary Relation & Ordering Relation. The other is on my list. I've reviewed some of the other material, which is pretty patchy, but will incorporate or link to those documents. > Might also want to reference the ontology design patterns portal [1] > which has some patterns relevant to the modelling section. Yes, will do. > Any plans to make this a wiki so other people can contribute or at least > comment? Ian and I debated this for some time, considering both a blog and a wiki. My preference was to kick things off with a site/book as we have done here. There might be some value in more structured discussion around particular patterns, e.g. on this list, which can then be distilled down into some useful advice. I remember some very useful experiments in this vein on xml-dev a number of years ago which I'm considering. For example new candidate patterns could be posted here for discussion. I'm also thinking about how to link discussions into the site to include in-line comments. In the meantime I'd encourage motivated folk to mail here, or add things to the ESW wiki. Historically though that wiki has been a bit of a dumping ground and is, IMHO messy and off-putting to people new to the subject. I think a little editorial layer is useful to help make this accessible for a wider audience. I'm sure others will disagree, but that's the wonder of open licensing :) Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com
Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Hi Leigh, On 06/04/2010 16:10, Leigh Dodds wrote: Hi folks, Ian Davis and I have been working on a catalogue of Linked Data patterns which we've put on-line as a free book. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution license. This is is still a very early draft but already contains 30 patterns covering identifiers, modelling, publishing and consuming Linked Data. http://patterns.dataincubator.org More background at [1]. We'd be interested to hear your comments, and hope that it can become a useful resource for the growing community of practitioners. Looks like a great start, well done! It would be nice to see some reference to, and inclusion of, the patterns than came out of SWBP. E.g. you currently seem to have one variant of the three n-ary relation patterns and I couldn't spot the classes-as-subjects pattern (but maybe didn't look hard enough). Might also want to reference the ontology design patterns portal [1] which has some patterns relevant to the modelling section. Any plans to make this a wiki so other people can contribute or at least comment? Dave [1] http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Main_Page
Announce: Linked Data Patterns book
Hi folks, Ian Davis and I have been working on a catalogue of Linked Data patterns which we've put on-line as a free book. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution license. This is is still a very early draft but already contains 30 patterns covering identifiers, modelling, publishing and consuming Linked Data. http://patterns.dataincubator.org More background at [1]. We'd be interested to hear your comments, and hope that it can become a useful resource for the growing community of practitioners. Cheers, L. [1]. http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2010/04/linked-data-patterns-a-free-book-for-practitioners/ -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Talis leigh.do...@talis.com http://www.talis.com
