Re: How "valid" is to use a term marked as "unstable" for a data publisher/consumer?

+Cc: Leigh Dodds, for old time's sake On 20 July 2016 at 09:45, Ghislain Atemezing wrote: > Hi all, > > [ Apologize if this question has been answered before in this group. ] > > Recently, I was working on a project where we were just reusing existing > terms for building a knowledge base for a p

new W3C CSV on the Web specs, now at Candidate Recommendation stage - please implement!

Hi! Short version: Please see http://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4830 for the Candidate Recommendation specs from W3C's CSV on the Web group - https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/wiki/Main_Page Long version: These are the 4 docs, "Model for Tabular Data and Metadata on the Web—an abstract model for t

Spec review request: CSV on the Web

The CSV on the Web Working Group [1] has just published a new set of Working Drafts, which we consider feature complete and implementable. We particularly seek reviews from Web Security, Privacy, Internationalization and Accessibility perspectives at this time. A request has also been sent to the T

Re: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships

On 26 March 2014 04:26, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Mar 25, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Markus Lanthaler > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:00 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >>> Seems to me that the, um, mistake that is made here is to use the same >>> property schema:knows for both the individual case and the

Re: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships

On 25 March 2014 15:52, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> please let's not talk about hash URLs etc. here, ok? > > So, please. Let's try to focus on the problem at hand. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving http-range-14 or URNs approaches 1" Dan

Re: Schema.org v1.0e published: Order schema, Accessibility properties

taset/lov/dif/dif_schema_1.0d-1.0e.html >> >> The Schema.org entry on LOV is as well updated (versions file and >> difference can be found on the timeline): >> http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_schema.html >> >> Regards, >> Pierre-Yves. &g

Re: Schema.org Autodiscovery?

On 12 July 2013 21:08, David Wood wrote: > Hi all, > > Does anyone (Dan?) know whether the schema.org folks do or plan to support > Linked Data referenced via tags? The idea would be very > similar to FOAF Autodiscovery [1]. > > I would think it would be quicker for the search engines to find

Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications

On 24 June 2013 14:31, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 6/24/13 2:14 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: >> >> Hello Kingsley Idehen, >> >> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 05:32:00PM -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>> >>> We don't need a central repository of anything. Linked Data is supposed >>> to be about enhancin

Re: List membership - more women

On 24 June 2013 10:34, Isabelle Augenstein wrote: > Hi Dominic, > > I only joined the list a few months ago, so my observations might be > inaccurate, but > > - Overall, most discussions on the list seem to be rather philosophical > (What is Linked Data? Does Linked Data require RDF?), which are

Re: The Great Public Linked Data Use Case Register for Non-Technical End User Applications

On 23 June 2013 23:46, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 6/23/13 5:36 PM, Barry Norton wrote: > > > Are you confusing Linked Data and Linked Open Data? > > > Of course not! > > Web-like structured data enhanced with explicit entity relationship > semantics enables serendipitous discovery at the public

Are Topic Maps Linked Data?

Just wondering, Dan

Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 20 June 2013 18:54, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: > My 2c is .. i agree with kingsley diagram , linked data should be possible > without RDF (no matter serialization) :) > however this is different from previous definitions > > i think its a step forward.. but it is different from previously. Do w

Re: Monitoring subscribers on the list

On 18 June 2013 15:43, Barry Norton wrote: > Does anyone know if the number of subscribers on the list can be monitored? > > I have a limited degree of monitoring, for the EUCLID project, through the > RSS feed and Web scraping, but I'm struggling to measure: > 1) what fraction of subscribers the

Re: CFP: Data In Web Search (DISH) Workshop - 13th May 2013, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Just to let you know, the Workshop papers deadline is extended until March 4th 2013. Please don't ask me what time of day on March 4th! --Dan On 9 January 2013 18:22, Dan Brickley wrote: > [I don't often crosspost to 3 W3C lists, but I think this will be an > important event

Linked Data & RDFa

With RDFa maturing (RDFa 1.1, particularly Lite), I wanted to ask here about attitudes to RDFa. I have acquired the impression somehow that in the Linked Data scene, people lean more towards the classic 'a doc for the humans, another for the machines' partitioning model. Perhaps this is just a con

CFP: Data In Web Search (DISH) Workshop - 13th May 2013, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

[I don't often crosspost to 3 W3C lists, but I think this will be an important event and hope to see some of you there... --Dan] CFP: Data In Web Search (DISH) Workshop - 13th May 2013, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Workshop: Conference: Th

Re: Breaking news: GoodRelations now fully integrated with schema.org!

On 8 November 2012 22:43, Guha wrote: > Thank you Martin for the great collaboration. Look forward to more. > > And on our side, it was really Dan Brickley who did the work. Thank you Dan. Well in fact it was Cenk Gazen who did the hard and interesting work on the schema.org side (and

Re: Creating a complete LOD example

British Monarchy might be interesting. A while back I went looking for a map of the interconnections amongst European Royalty (obviously a larger problem) and was surprised not to find much. I think eventually I did find some GEDCOM family tree info. https://www.google.com/search?q=european+royalty

Re: GoodRelations: xmlns vs. prefix

I can't answer for GR in general, but this does seem a good point to mention that an integration of Good Relations into schema.org is in progress. At schema.org, the launch syntax was HTML5 Microdata, but we have also been very involved in the discussions around RDFa 1.1, particularly the Lite subs

Re: ANN: WebDataCommons.org - Offering 3.2 billion quads current RDFa, Microdata and Miroformat data extracted from 65.4 million websites

How about adding a disclaimer line to the webdatacommons.org site like "Note that the many database-backed sites contain a huge long tail of rarely-visited, rarely-linked pages (e.g. product catalogues), but which increasingly contain useful structured data. It is best not to assume that this coll

Re: ANN: WebDataCommons.org - Offering 3.2 billion quads current RDFa, Microdata and Miroformat data extracted from 65.4 million websites

On 17 April 2012 18:56, Peter Mika wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > It's not as simple as that, because PageRank is a probabilistic algorithm (it > includes random jumps between pages), and I wouldn't expect that wayfair.com > would include 2M links on a single page (that would be one very long webpage

Re: {Disarmed} Re: See Other

On 28 March 2012 14:28, Hugh Glaser wrote: > I can't find any apps (other than mine) that actually use this. > > Searching: > Sindice: > http://sindice.com/search?q=http://graph.facebook.com > 40 (forty) results > Bing: > http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22http://graph.facebook.com/%22 > 8400 results

Re: See Other

On 28 March 2012 14:24, David Wood wrote: > Hi Dan, > > On Mar 27, 2012, at 21:30, Dan Brickley wrote: > >> On 27 March 2012 20:23, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> >>> I'm curious as to why this is difficult to explain.  Especially since I also >>> have

See Other

On 27 March 2012 20:23, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > I'm curious as to why this is difficult to explain.  Especially since I also > have difficulties explaining the benefits of linked data.  However, normally > the road block I hit is explaining why URIs are important. Alice: So, you want to share

Re: The Battle for Linked Data

On 26 March 2012 20:13, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 3/26/12 2:16 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: >> >> I think this can be defused: >> >> "'Linked Data' is the use of the Web standards to share documents that >> encode structured data, typically

Re: The Battle for Linked Data

On 26 March 2012 16:49, Hugh Glaser wrote: > So What is Linked Data? I think this can be defused: "'Linked Data' is the use of the Web standards to share documents that encode structured data, typically but not necessarily using a graph data model." Considerations --- It's important to be open

Re: The Battle for Linked Data

On 26 March 2012 19:16, Dan Brickley wrote: > On 26 March 2012 16:49, Hugh Glaser wrote: >> So What is Linked Data? > > I think this can be defused: > > "'Linked Data' is the use of the Web standards to share documents that > encode structured data, typi

Re: Annotating IR of any relevance? (httpRange-14)

ch term bloat, would make them strong > contenders for a consensus definition - or at the very least, to point > towards the shape a consensus should take. So I've been trying to drag FRBR into this conversation for some years now, http://www.frbr.org/2005/07/05/dan-brickley-and-the-w3c

Re: Annotating IR of any relevance? (httpRange-14)

On 26 March 2012 08:51, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: > Is annotating IRs is of *any value practical and role today* ? > > Anything of value and core interest to  wikipedia, imdb, bestbuy, bbc, > geonames, rottentomatoes, lastfm, facebook, whatever. is a  NIR. > > We are talking people, products > >

Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On 25 March 2012 20:26, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > > On 2012-03 -24, at 00:47, Pat Hayes wrote: > > I am sympathetic, but... > > On Mar 23, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote: > > > The proposal is that URI X denotes what the publisher of X says it denotes, > whether it returns 200 or not. > > >

Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On 25 March 2012 11:03, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: > > Hello Jeni, > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:13:09AM +0100, Jeni Tennison wrote: >> I agree we shouldn't blame publishers who conflate IRs and NIRs. That is not >> what happens at the moment. Therefore we need to change something. > > Do you thi

Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On 24 March 2012 17:36, Dave Reynolds wrote: > However, the data is not always under our complete control and > there is no universal agreement on what default fragment to use. Leaving us > either having to maintain mapping tables or try multiple probes ("when asked > for U try then try the

Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On 24 March 2012 10:20, Dave Reynolds wrote: > BTW the fact that AFAIK there is no broadly used URI for the class of IRs > (causing me to use foaf:Document in the above) may indicate how frequently > people do in fact make the httpRange-14 inference in a way that is > accessible to the rest of th

Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On 23 March 2012 14:33, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote: > >> I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point >> I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also pointed it out), >> that, as shown by the Flickr and Jamendo examples, the

Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

2012/3/23 Melvin Carvalho : > > > 2012/3/23 Giovanni Tummarello >> >> 2012/3/23 Sergio Fernández : >> > Do you really think that base your proposal on the usage on a Powder >> > annotation is a good idea? >> > >> > Sorry, but IMHO HttpRange-14 is a good enough agreement. >> >> yup performed brilli

Re: ANN: Sudoc bibliographic ans authority data

On 7 July 2011 23:17, Yann NICOLAS wrote: > Bonjour, > > Sudoc [1], the French academic union catalogue maintained by ABES [2], has > just been released as linked open data. > > 10 million bibliographic records are now available as RDF/XML. > > Examples for the Sudoc record whose internal id is 13

survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label?

Dear all, The FOAF RDFS/OWL document currently includes the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label . This is one of several things that OWL DL oriented tools (eg. http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator) don't seem to like, since it mixes application schemas with the W3C builtins. So fo

Re: Correct Usage of rdfs:idDefinedBy in Vocabulary Specifications with a Hash-based URI Pattern

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Martin Hepp wrote: > Dear all: > > We use rdfs:isDefinedBy in all of our vocabularies (*) for linking between > the conceptual elements and their specification. > > Now, there is a subtle question: > > Let's assume we have an ontology with the main URI > >        h

Re: Next version of the LOD cloud diagram. Please provide input, so that your dataset is included.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Anja Jentzsch wrote: > Hi all, > > we are in the process of drawing the next version of the LOD cloud diagram. > This time it is likely to contain around 180 datasets altogether having a > size of around 20 billion RDF triples. > > For drawing the next version of th

Re: Predicate for external links on dbpedialite.org?

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Nicholas Humfrey wrote: > Hello, > > I have added external links to dbpedialite, for example see Berlin: > http://dbpedialite.org/things/3354 > > Is there a better predicate to use than rdfs:seeAlso? I am not sure if it is > correct because the link is just a rando

Re: Solving Real Problems with Linked Data: Verifiable Network Identity & Single Sign On

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Q: What about OpenID? > > A: The WebID Protocol embraces and extends OpenID via the WebID + OpenID That's an unfortunate turn of phrase. The intent I assume is to suggest that there are ways in which the two approaches can be used together

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: [...] >> This is >> the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial procedure we >> should use to arbitrate between competing understandings of its meaning. > > Whoo, I doubt if that idea is going to fly. I sincerely hope not. Using > th

Re: RDF Extensibility

2010/7/6 Jiří Procházka : > On 07/06/2010 03:35 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:03:19 +0200 >> "Michael Schneider" wrote: >> >>> So, if >>> >>>     :s "lit" :o . >>> >>> must not have a semantic meaning, what about >>> >>>     "lit" rdf:type rdf:Property . >>> >>> ? As, according

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote: > Hi Sampo. > I venture in again... > I have much enjoyed the interchanges, and they have illuminated a number of > cultural differences for me, which have helped me understand why some people > have disagree with things that seem clear to me. >

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

[snip] This is the second time in a few hours that a thread has degenerated into talk of accusations and insults. I don't care who started it. Sometimes email just isn't the best way to communicate. If people are feeling this way about an email discussion, it might be worth the respective parties

Re: PRISM data on the LOD cloud?

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Hammond, Tony wrote: > Hi Kingsley: > >> Kill me with the PDF URL :-( > > I think we could have been a tad more gracious here. This kind of remark > only serves to alienate the well intentioned. > > You know, it's not actually (yet) a crime to put out a PDF on the o

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>> The sequence went something like this. >>> >>> TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was >>> simply >>> in the dark ages. >>> >> >> It's only simple if you weren't there :) > > You mean you didn't see me lurking

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > The sequence went something like this. > > TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was simply > in the dark ages. It's only simple if you weren't there :) cheers, Dan

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

(cc: list trimmed to LOD list.) On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Cut long story short. [-cut-] > We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data > representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its basically the > foundation that bootstrapped the Hou

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote: >> In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice >> but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other >> serializations of N3 to come along. > > RIF (which b

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as > subjects > > I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes > throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node

Re: "destabilizing core technologies: was Re: An RDF wishlist

Hi Patrick, On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: > Dan, > > Just a quick response to only one of the interesting points you raise: > >> It's clear that many workshop participants were aware of the risk of >> destabilizing the core technologies just as we are gaining some very >

An RDF wishlist

(rejigged subject line) On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: >> Pat, I wish you had been there.  ;) > > I have very mixed views on this, I have to say. Part of me wanted badly to > be present. But after reading the results of the straw poll, part of me > wants to completely forget abo

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 >> Dan Brickley wrote: >> >>> That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is >>

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On 28 Jun 2010, at 09:51, Graham Klyne wrote: > Bob, > > A desired feature that led to the current rdf:List structure is the ability > to "close" a list - so some separate sub-graph can't "silently" add > properties not in the original. Also that consumers could notice when some intermedi

Re: RIF is a REC

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:49 PM, KangHao Lu (Kenny) wrote: >> I'll be very interested to see some linked data client libraries start >> to harvest and use RIF.   It's one of the next big steps in making this >> ecosystem really take off. >> > > Congradulations! > > The practical question is: "Is t

Re: ANNOUNCE: lod-announce list

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Angelo Veltens wrote: > Hi, > > Ian Davis schrieb: >> Hi all, >> >> Now we are getting a steady growth in the number of Linked Data sites, >> products and services I thought it was time to create a low-volume >> announce list for Linked Data related announcements s

Re: Slideshare.net as Linked Data

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi All, > > I've wrapped the Slideshare.net API to expose it as RDF. You can find a blog > post about the service at [1] and the service itself at [2]. An interesting > bit is how we deal with Slideshare's API limits by letting you use your own >

Re: Organization ontology

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Peristeras, Vassilios wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> I have the feeling that we are (at least partly) reinventing the wheel >> here. There have been several initiatives drafting generic models and >> representations for organizations. Just two

Re: Organization types predicates vs classes

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:21 PM, William Waites wrote: > On 10-06-08 04:27, Todd Vincent wrote: >> >> By adding "OrganizationType" to the Organization data model, you provide >> the ability to modify the type of organization and can then represent >> both (legal) entities and (legally unrecognized

Re: Organizations changing status

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:17 PM, William Waites wrote: > On 10-06-07 23:03, Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) wrote: > >> b) what happens when organizations change legal status? > > I'm not certain but I don't think this ever really > happens. In practice the old organisation ceases to > exist and a new on

Re: Please stop massive crawling against http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: > Dear all: > > The volunteer who is hosting http://openean.kaufkauf.net/id/, a huge set of > GoodRelations product model data, is experiencing a problematic amount of > traffic from unidentified crawlers located in Ireland (DERI?), the >

Re: Organization ontology

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:07 PM, William Waites wrote: > On 10-06-03 09:01, Dan Brickley wrote: >> I don't find anything particularly troublesome about the org: vocab on >> this front. If you really want to critique culturally-loaded >> ontologies, I'd go find one

Re: Organization ontology

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Dave Reynolds > wrote: >> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 17:06 +1200, Stuart A. Yeates wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds >>> wrote: >>> > We would like to announce the availability of an ontol

Re: Why should we publish ordered collections or indexes as RDF?

2010/6/3 Haijie.Peng : > [Apologies for cross-posting] > > Why should we publish ordered collections or indexes as RDF? is it necessary? On the Web, very little is 'necessary'. But some things can be useful. Indexes and summaries can help software prioritise, and allow larger files to be loaded on

Re: UK Govt RDF Data Sets

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Jeni Tennison wrote: >> >> Kingsley, >> >> On 15 Apr 2010, at 23:19, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>> >>> Do you have any idea as to the whereabouts of RDF data sets for the >>> SPARQL endpoints associated with data.gov.uk? [...] > One thing I ha

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Ian Davis wrote: > When talking to people who aren't semweb engineers then i use > URL/URI/link interchangeably. I don't think it matters because the 1% > that care will look it all up and get the distinction and the rest > will just get on and use RDF as shown. Y

Re: Fwd: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Nathan wrote: > Wonder what would happen if we just called them "Links"? I think that would confuse people. And would put stress just on the point where SemWeb and HTML notions of link diverge. An HTML page can have two (hyper-)links, contact us in the header, an

Fwd: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

nical term, and rebranded around the concept of 'linkage', I think it'll go a long way towards explaining what we're up to with RDF. Thoughts? Dan ------ Forwarded message -- From: Dan Brickley Date: Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM Subject: backronym proposal: Univ

Re: UK Govt RDF Data Sets

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Jun Zhao wrote: >> 2010/4/16 Dan Brickley >>> >>> Re their provenance requirements, do you know if the right people are >>> already engaged with the W3C Incubator on this topic; see various >>> links fwd'd in >&

Re: twitter's annotation and metadata

+cc: Ed Summers On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Chris Sizemore wrote: > the main problem is gonna be the cognitive dissonance over whether a tweet > is an information or non-information resource and how many URIs are needed > to fully rep a tweet... > so, who's gonna volunteer to publish the li

Re: UK Govt RDF Data Sets

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Ian Davis wrote: > Kingsley, > > You should address your question directly to the project organisers, > we're a technology provider and host some of the data but it is not up > to us when or where the dumps get shared. My understanding is that > because this is of

Re: DBpedia hosting burden

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Ian Davis wrote: > > When you use the term: SPARQL Mirror (note: Leigh's comments yesterday re. > not orienting towards this), you open up a different set of issues. I don't > want to revisit SPARQL and SPARQL extensions debate etc.. Esp. a

Re: DBpedia hosting burden

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Ian Davis wrote: > > When you use the term: SPARQL Mirror (note: Leigh's comments yesterday re. > not orienting towards this), you open up a different set of issues. I don't > want to revisit SPARQL and SPARQL extensions debate etc.. Esp. a

Re: DBpedia hosting burden

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Daniel Koller wrote: > Dan, > ...I just setup some torrent files containing the current english and german > dbpedia content: (.. as a test/proof of concept, was just curious to see how > fast a network effect via p2p networks). > To try, go to http://dakoller.net

Re: DBpedia hosting burden

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Some have cleaned up their act for sure. > > Problem is, there are others doing the same thing, who then complain about > the instance in very generic fashion. They're lucky it exists at all. I'd refer them to this Louis CK sketch - htt

DBpedia hosting burden

(trimming cc: list to LOD and DBPedia) On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > My comment wasn't a "what is DBpedia?" lecture. It was about clarifying > the crux of the matter i.e., bandwidth consumption and its effects on > other DBpedia users (as well as our own non-DBpedia r

Re: XMP RDF extractors?

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > Even more tangent, but when I read in detail the XMP spec last year (in > relation to the Media Annotation WG), I came to two conclusions: > > - XMP specifies RDF at the level of the XML serialization, which is > *ugly* (emphasis on

XMP RDF extractors?

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote: > Hi, > > Yes. > > PDF: http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/linked-data-patterns.pdf > EPUB: http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/linked-data-patterns.epub Something of a tangent but this reminds me, what's the latest on RDF extractors for

Re: Hungarian National Library published its entire OPAC and Digital Library as Linked Data

On 7 Apr 2010, at 18:25, "HORVATH Adam" wrote: The national library of Hungary - officially named as National Széchényi Library (NSZL) - proudly announces that its entire OPAC a nd Digital Library and the corresponding authority data have been published as Linked Data. The used vocabulari

Re: [Patterns] Materialize Inferences (was Re: Triple materialization at publisher level)

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Leigh Dodds wrote: > Vasiliy asks an excellent question below about publishing of inferred > data. This happens to be one of the patterns on my short-list, so I > thought I'd share a draft definition here to seek comments and develop > the discussion. But I'm also

Re: Announce: Linked Data Patterns book

r 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.

Re: KIT releases 14 billion triples to the Linked Open Data cloud

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: > Hi Denny: > Without spooling your All Fools' Day joke: I think it is a dangerous one, > because there is obviously a true core in the expected criticism. > > I think that without any need, you give outsiders additional ammunition to > co

Re: KIT releases 14 billion triples to the Linked Open Data cloud

But I love it :) Do the numbers include dates? Dan On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Matthias Samwald wrote: > Hi Denny, > > I am sorry, but I have to voice some criticism of this project. Over the > past two years, I have become increasingly wary of the excitement over large > numbers of triples

Re: Should dbpedia have stuff in that is not from wikipedia - was: Re: A URI(Web ID) for the semantic web community as a foaf:Group

[snip] Couple of almost-independent points - Re DBpedia, I share a concern that the "Wikipedia turned into a database" product remain fairly clearly defined, even though the RDFization naturally includes a bit of creativity. However even that has subtleties - there are the different language vari

Re: SKOS, owl:sameAs and DBpedia

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Yves Raimond wrote: >>> >>> Is that an issue? Should we drop SKOS altogether if we go on with >>> that, or should we use skos:exactMatch instead of owl:sameAs? >> >> see also http://wiki.foaf-project.org/w/term_focus >> >> I'm running out of excuses for not having

Re: SKOS, owl:sameAs and DBpedia

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Yves Raimond wrote: > Hello! > > We are in the process of rolling out some links to DBpedia over in BBC > Programmes. However, we are facing a small issue. We use our own > categorisation scheme based on SKOS, and then want to add some sameAs > links to DBpedia. >

Re: Improving Organization of Govt. based Linked Data Projects

On 21 Mar 2010, at 12:47, Hugh Glaser wrote: Hi Kingsley, I am right with you - finding stuff is hard. But I do think we could make it easier for all of us. Just the esw wiki alone requires me to put every set I create into a bunch of places 10 years ago, looking for RDF on the public Web w

Re: head/@profile needed in HTML 5? GRDDL in Linked Data community?

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > The proposal from the editors and chairs it that it is not needed; > i.e. not cost-effective. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0794.html > > Dan B., your message suggests (without actually saying so) that > Dublin Core

Re: Colors

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > Does anyone know of URIs which identify colors? Umbel has the general notion > of Color, but I want the actual colors, like, you know, red, white, blue and > yellow. I can make up my own, but would rather use some already out there, > if they exi

Re: Terminology when talking about Linked Data

On 17 Feb 2010, at 18:14, Pat Hayes wrote: On Feb 17, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: ... . RDF was originally standardised as a metadata system, a mechanism for finding stuff ... whether that stuff was photos, videos, HTML pages, excel spreadsheets, SQL databases, 3d models

Re: Terminology when talking about Linked Data

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Damian Steer wrote: > Historical aside: > > On 17/02/10 11:20, Hugh Glaser wrote: > >> More recently I have also badged as Web of Data; > > See [1], since 1998 :-) It's been used fairly regularly since then, although > I'd highlight [2] as a particularly significa

Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Ying Ding wrote: > Hi, > > If you are interested to know the Semantic Web: Who is who from the > perspective of Scopus and Web Of Science, recently we conduct a bibliometric > analysis in this field > (http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/JIS-1098-v4.

Re: DBpedia-based entity recognition service / tool?

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Georgi Kobilarov wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > So you're asking for the perfect entity recognition service, applicable to > the easy domain of scientific texts? Sure, I developed one in my spare time, > it's much better than OpenCalais, I was just too lazy to publish it

Re: Question about "paths as URIs" in the BBC RDF

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Ross Singer wrote: > Hi, I have a question about something I've run across when trying to > parse the RDF coming from the BBC.  If you take a document like: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/72c536dc-7137-4477-a521-567eeb840fa8.rdf > > notice how all of the UR

Can anyone help with an XSLT GRDDL conversion of Open Packaging Format (OPF) into RDF/XML Dublin Core

Hi all http://www.idpf.org/2007/opf/OPF_2.0_final_spec.html#AppendixA defines a Dublin Core-based XML metadata format used for ebooks. This is very nice but a little disconnected from other Dublin Core data in RDF. It would be great to have some XSLT to explore closer integration and use of newer

Re: ISBNs, owl:sameAs, etc

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > Psst, Chris, Tobias - any chance of RDFBookMashup rendering 'owl:sameAs > urn:isbn:12434567' ? > > I might see if I can glue freebase's 1.8 million or so ISBNs onto > rdfbookmashup. It's probably common knowledge, but there's a few scripts

Re: Creating JSON from RDF

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote: > Richard, > > My opinion, based on the reactions that I've seen from enthusiastic, > hard-working developers who just want to get things done, is that we (the > data.gov.uk project in particular, linked data in general) are not providing > th

Re: Creating JSON from RDF

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Richard Light wrote: > In message , "Hammond, Tony" > writes >> >> Normal developers will always want simple. > > Surely what normal developers actually want are simple commands whereby data > can be streamed in, and become available programmatically within their

Re: Creating JSON from RDF

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote: > Hi Jeni, > > [Rest of post snipped for now, I'll respond properly later. Seems like we > are on sufficiently similar wavelengths that it is "just" a matter of > working the details.] > >> I don't know where the best place is to work on this:

  1   2   >