W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > November 2010

Re: a pattern language for linked data

From: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:10:09 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTininvbNT81KoutWk5AnaVoNf+23hyEUazpHdEqx@mail.gmail.com>
To: richard.murphy@gsa.gov
Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org
Hi Richard,

On 9 November 2010 16:51,  <richard.murphy@gsa.gov> wrote:
> Hello Leigh:
>
> I wanted to say how pleased I was a few months ago when Michael Hausenblas
> forwarded me a a reference to your Linked Data Patterns book. Totally
> Brilliant! I think a pattern language is just the right approach for linked
> data. And yes, I mean a pattern language, something more whole and alive
> than how the industry has come to portray design patterns since the 90s.

Thanks for the feedback, am glad you find it useful. Not sure if
others on the list have seen it, so just in case:

http://patterns.dataincubator.org

> So I reached into my bookshelf this morning and dusted off my copies of A
> Timeless Way of Building, A Pattern Language and the Oregon Experiment. For
> those who haven't read them, I highly recommend all three of these books.
> ...

I've not yet read those books, most of my experience has been focused
on software patterns. I find them an invaluable way to help codify and
share experience, both as a reader and a writer: the form itself
encourages brevity and clarity.

> ...
> I haven't looked closely at the view source, but I see XHTML transitional at
> the top. I wonder whether distributed publishing in RDFa might be of
> interest to you? An eat your own dog food exercise in Linked Data.

I'd encourage anyone to publish some patterns, the more sources the
better IMO. It might be an interesting exercise to look at capturing
the patterns themselves as RDF. I did consider that, but decided it
would distract me from the core task, which was to actually write
stuff down :)

> I have two additional patterns in mind: edge specifications and un-original
> intentionality. Edge specifications [1] overcome our natural tendency to
> define again yet another core for what has already been defined, possibly a
> few times already. Un-original intentionality is a pattern where a concept
> is no longer considered a "natural kind" and uses an RDFS reasoner to infer
> the concept as an intersection, or union of subject and predicate. The name
> takes license with John Searle's Chinese Room Argument.

Perhaps the public-lod list would be a good place to discuss these
patterns further?

Cheers,

L.

-- 
Leigh Dodds
Programme Manager, Talis Platform
Talis
leigh.dodds@talis.com
http://www.talis.com
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 13:10:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 11 November 2010 13:10:43 GMT