On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Michael
Hausenblas wrote:
> Since this works now, I've got a question: what is the versioning policy
> you're using? You obviously have a time-labelled namespace
> (http://linkedevents.org/ontology/2009-07-28/) and indeed this resolves to
> this one:
>
> curl -H "
Ryan,
>> http://linkedevents.org/ontology/Event
>>
>> and it 404s ...
>>
> Apologies, that should be fixed now.
Thanks. Sorted ;)
Since this works now, I've got a question: what is the versioning policy
you're using? You obviously have a time-labelled namespace
(http://linkedevents.org/ontology
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Richard
Light wrote:
> Another ontology/vocabulary which is centred around events is the CIDOC CRM
> (Conceptual Reference Model). [1] It is "a formal ontology intended to
> facilitate the integration, mediation and interchange of heterogeneous
> cultural heritag
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Michael
Hausenblas wrote:
> So, I'm trying to check how linked dataish it is. First class I pick:
>
> http://linkedevents.org/ontology/Event
>
> and it 404s ...
>
> Maybe fix that and then we continue?
Apologies, that should be fixed now.
In message <82593ac00907291409t57507d29u54a5d37a1906...@mail.gmail.com>,
Yves Raimond writes
The disjoint statement between agent and factor defines factors as
something that doesn't have an active role in the event.
But are necessary for the event to take place? Or play a significant role in
Ryan,
Interesting work.
> Your feedback (even harsh criticism) is welcome!
So, I'm trying to check how linked dataish it is. First class I pick:
http://linkedevents.org/ontology/Event
and it 404s ...
Maybe fix that and then we continue?
Cheers,
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDR
My colleagues Raphaël Troncy and Lynda Hardman and I have recently
published an event ontology which is heavily based on Yves' event
ontology but which tries to address some of the clarity issues that
Pat has raised. You can find it at
http://linkedevents.org/ontology/
There is an accompanying te
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM, wrote:
> Hi Alan
>
> Just to check I understand your point- because it's perfectly possible I am
> missing something important :-) I'm asking for clarification here, not
> making a counter-argument.
>
> The "standard" Linked Data approach, as I understand it, is
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> To paraphrase Korzybski's famous maxim, the website is not the territory.
Damn! I wish *I* said that!
:)
-Alan
On Jul 29, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:
The disjoint statement between agent and factor defines factors as
something that doesn't have an active role in the event.
But are necessary for the event to take place? Or play a
significant role in
the event, so that if they were not prese
>> The disjoint statement between agent and factor defines factors as
>> something that doesn't have an active role in the event.
>
> But are necessary for the event to take place? Or play a significant role in
> the event, so that if they were not present, the event would have been
> different? Or
>> And while the Event ontology doesn't state event:Factor and
>> geo:SpatialThing to be distinct (maybe they didn't want to make such
>> statements about other people's terms - with OWL 2 they could do this for
>> event:factor and event:place now though) I think it's pretty obvious that
>> you're
2009/7/29 Pat Hayes :
> Indeed. However, it suffers from one glaring defect, which may simply be a
> problem of documentation: i does not explain its terms.
Documentation is a pretty common problem...
In particular, it
> refers to a 'factor' of an event, without anywhere saying anything, either
>>> Indeed. However, it suffers from one glaring defect, which may simply be a
>>> problem of documentation: i does not explain its terms. In particular, it
>>> refers to a 'factor' of an event, without anywhere saying anything, either
>>> in the axioms or in the documentation, to explain what this
>> Wow. No need to shout
>
> Sorry. You pressed one my buttons. I am so fed up reading 'documentation'
> along the lines of "A frongleBlitz" is any blitz with a frongle". It is just
> irresponsible to write such stuff when putting forward something that is
> claimed to be an ontology, especiall
On 29 Jul 2009, at 17:54, Yves Raimond wrote:
Also, we are perfectly open for improvements, so if you have any
suggestions for improvement or better description of terms, feel free.
There is even an open SVN (motools project on Sourceforge, in the
event subdirectory), where you can directly com
On Jul 29, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Yves
Raimond wrote:
and so we didn't got the incentive to
write a better one. Among those examples, you have:
* A score in a musical performance
* A musical instrument in a musical
On Jul 29, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello!
Indeed. However, it suffers from one glaring defect, which may
simply be a
problem of documentation: i does not explain its terms. In
particular, it
refers to a 'factor' of an event, without anywhere saying anything,
either
in the
Giovanni,
Great work!! Now Parrallax is finally linked to the LOD. One request, can
you add the Virtuoso LOD endpoint to the list of defaults? Or give quick
example how to add it myself. I'd like to take this for a ride through the
LOD Cloud.
-sherman
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Giovanni Tu
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Simon
Reinhardt wrote:
> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Yves Raimond
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> and so we didn't got the incentive to
>>> write a better one. Among those examples, you have:
>>>
>>> * A score in a musical performance
>>> * A m
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:
and so we didn't got the incentive to
write a better one. Among those examples, you have:
* A score in a musical performance
* A musical instrument in a musical performance
* A piece of text in a reading
* A microphon
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> Indeed. However, it suffers from one glaring defect, which may simply be a
>> problem of documentation: i does not explain its terms. In particular, it
>> refers to a 'factor' of an event, without anywhere saying anything, either
>
Hello!
> Indeed. However, it suffers from one glaring defect, which may simply be a
> problem of documentation: i does not explain its terms. In particular, it
> refers to a 'factor' of an event, without anywhere saying anything, either
> in the axioms or in the documentation, to explain what this
On Jul 29, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 29/07/2009 12:35, "Kingsley Idehen"
wrote:
Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 28/07/2009 14:46, "Kingsley Idehen"
wrote:
Hugh Glaser wrote:
Good stuff.
However, I don't think that Named Graphs are the answer.
I get
On Jul 29, 2009, at 4:55 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello!
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM, David Canos
wrote:
Hi folks
i'd like to public a lot of events for a startup project and I want
to use a
public vocabulary to make it useful.
I've found a vocabulary [1] done by Yves, is this ontolog
rocks, thats what I call a nice hack.
a great idea - you are near the middle of the lod cloud, man :-)
best
Leo
btw "rock", looking for sean connery and wanting to display all his
movies "on a map",
google maps says, you are using a "another man's" google maps api key
and shows funny messageb
Daniel Schwabe wrote:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Daniel Schwabe wrote:
Hi Kingsley (and all)
Just a reminder - You can also explore the LoD, including
http://lod.openlinksw.com, by adding the SPARQL endpoint address in
Explorator ([1] has a short video and a link to the interface
itself). Just
Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 29/07/2009 12:35, "Kingsley Idehen" wrote:
Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 28/07/2009 14:46, "Kingsley Idehen" wrote:
Hugh Glaser wrote:
Good stuff.
However, I don't think that Named Graphs are the answer.
I get my Linked Data by resolving URIs o
Offhand, I see the following requirements for many (mostly social) RDF
applications:
- text indexing
- text diff for versioning
- distributed versioning and synchronization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_version_control
- provenance: author, data source (which might have named graph
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Daniel Schwabe wrote:
Hi Kingsley (and all)
Just a reminder - You can also explore the LoD, including
http://lod.openlinksw.com, by adding the SPARQL endpoint address in
Explorator ([1] has a short video and a link to the interface
itself). Just (go Menu->Repositories)
On 29/07/2009 12:35, "Kingsley Idehen" wrote:
> Hugh Glaser wrote:
>> On 28/07/2009 14:46, "Kingsley Idehen" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hugh Glaser wrote:
>>>
Good stuff.
However, I don't think that Named Graphs are the answer.
I get my Linked Data by resolving URIs over http.
>>>
Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 28/07/2009 14:46, "Kingsley Idehen" wrote:
Hugh Glaser wrote:
Good stuff.
However, I don't think that Named Graphs are the answer.
I get my Linked Data by resolving URIs over http.
If I ask your Linked Data Space (I hope that is the right use of your
terminology)
Hello!
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM, David Canos wrote:
> Hi folks
> i'd like to public a lot of events for a startup project and I want to use a
> public vocabulary to make it useful.
> I've found a vocabulary [1] done by Yves, is this ontology the best place to
> start with?
> I will extend i
Daniel Schwabe wrote:
Hi Kingsley (and all)
Just a reminder - You can also explore the LoD, including
http://lod.openlinksw.com, by adding the SPARQL endpoint address in
Explorator ([1] has a short video and a link to the interface itself).
Just (go Menu->Repositories) and add the URL for the
thanks very much Alan for your answer.
I'm quite bad creating ontologies but I think it doesn't exists what I need
and my ignorance tell me it could be helpful to set out a simple owl
describing the event concept and its context:
Where, when, tematics, description, prices, images, videos, geolocali
(Apologies for multiple postings)
**
**
* 2nd Call for papers*
*
36 matches
Mail list logo
