W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > May 2008

RE: Using Linking Open Data datasets

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:54:03 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D29852016BEB82@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Jun Zhao" <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-lod@w3.org>, <public-powderwg@w3.org>


Jun,

Yes indeed, interesting aspects here. I guess we have to determine which
facets can best be represented using the Semantic Sitemap Extension [1]
and which ones need additional work. What I've done so far is updating
the Wiki page [2] to reflect the current state of the discussion (I
hope:) and I'd like to ask you to add your pieces there as well (it's a
Wiki, after all ;).

I'm absolutely for reusing as much of the vocabularies that are around,
already. However, I'm not sure if e.g. a 'set:flyted rdfs:seeAlso
<http://spade.lbl.gov:2021/> ;' is strong enough.

Please note as well that we could learn something from 'Protocol for Web
Description Resources' (POWDER) [3] (I've cc'd the WG now). When we've
gathered some more requirements and know more precisely what we want to
express with it and what is out of scope, we might be able to come up
with a concrete proposal.

Good to see things moving on!

Cheers,
	Michael

[1] http://sw.deri.org/2007/07/sitemapextension/
[2] http://community.linkeddata.org/MediaWiki/index.php?MetaLOD
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-use-cases/

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jun Zhao [mailto:jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk] 
>Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 7:22 PM
>To: Hausenblas, Michael
>Cc: public-lod@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Using Linking Open Data datasets
>
>Hello Michael,
>
>
>Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
>> Dear LODers,
>>
>> One thing we encounter recurrently when using the LOD datasets is
where
>> to 'start best'. I'm unsure how to handle this situation, so I tried
to
>> gather some issues along with a simple proposal how to deal with it
>> (called MetaLOD) at [1]. The idea basically is to develop a
vocabulary
>> and gather information 'about' the LOD datasets, such as 'at Geonames
>> you get location-based information', etc.
>>   
>This looks very interesting. And I desperately share your needs, i.e. 
>looking for the data to link to.
>
>I am also thinking about rdfs:seeAlso, and something like skos:related,

>skos:broader or skos:narrower.
>
>A snip showing how I could use your structure to describe our data:
>
>:LODataset a rdfs:Class ;
>            rdfs:label "a LOD dataset" .
> 
> set:DBpedia a :LODataset ; 
>             owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/> .
> 
> set:Geonames a :LODataset ; 
>              owl:sameAs <http://sws.geonames.org/> ;
>              foaf:topic 
><http://dbpedia.org/resource/Location_%28geography%29> .
> 
> set:flyted a :LODataset ; 
>              owl:sameAs <http://www.fly-ted.org/sparql> ;
>              foaf:topic <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Biology> ;
>              foaf:topic <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Drosophila> ;
>	      foaf:topic <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Image> ;
>              rdfs:seeAlso <http://spade.lbl.gov:2021/> ;
>              skos;related <http://spade.lbl.gov:2021/> ;
>              skos:narrower <http://dbpedia.org/> .
>
>   
>What do you think?
>
>All the best,
>
>Jun
>
>> I'm aware of the fact that each LOD dataset *should* provide this
kind
>> of information about itself, however (i) not all do AFAIK, and (ii)
even
>> if all did, how can an application determine effectively and
efficiently
>> which LOD dataset might be good to use for a certain task? I don't
want
>> to propose a 'centrally controlled registry' with this idea, just a
way
>> to flag what to expect from a LOD dataset as a kind of jump start. 
>>
>> A formal description of the LOD dataset would also be beneficial for
>> other exploration purposes, I guess. For example we could express
access
>> options for a LOD dataset (dump, SPARQL endpoint, etc.) or QoS
>> information, even trust issues or (user) ratings might be of
interest.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> While I'm here: In case you're around at ESWC08, come and join us at
the
>> LOD gathering [2]
>>
>> Cheers,
>> 	Michael
>>
>> [1] http://community.linkeddata.org/MediaWiki/index.php?MetaLOD
>> [2]
http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenD
ata/TenerifeGathering
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>  Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>>  Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>>  JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>>  Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
>>
>>  <office>
>>    phone: +43-316-876-1193 (fax:-1191)   
>>   mobile: +43-699-1876-1165
>>   e-mail: michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at
>>    skype: mhausenblas
>>      web: http://www.joanneum.at/iis/ 
>>
>>  <see also>
>>           http://sw-app.org/about.html 
>>           http://riese.joanneum.at
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 30 May 2008 08:57:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:16 UTC