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

Re: A VoCamp Galway 2008 success story

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:59:31 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0811290559w60a34bc7u733c8c36e7d97fa5@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Fran├žois Scharffe" <francois.scharffe@sti2.at>
Cc: "Michael Hausenblas" <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, public-lod@w3.org
2008/11/29 Fran├žois Scharffe <francois.scharffe@sti2.at>:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>>
>> Francois,
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback and the question. Though I'm not sure what you
>> technically mean with 'my:links is a named graph' :)

ditto

> The system output the links in a named graph. See the following example in
> TRiG:
>
> <my:links>
> {
>  <http://kmi.open.ac.uk/fusion/dblp#document1632795751_264>
>  owl:same_as
> <http://kmi.open.ac.uk/fusion/dblp#document1ad8378bff1fe32cd13989741b50fe3eaef0db93>
> .
> }
>
> We can then describe it as a void:Linkset as I've described below. This
> allows to attach other information such as the author of the linkset, the
> parameters of the algorithm used to generate it, etc.
>
>> I think the answer is simple: indeed we decided to model datasets and
>> linksets independently from each other. The following example from the (not
>> yet publicly available) voiD guide may illustrate this:

I'm not at all sure that's a valid distinction. How do they differ?

>> Let's assume the two well-known linked datasets DBpedia and DBLP:
>>
>> :DBpedia void:containsLinks :DBpedia2DBLP  .
>>
>> :DBpedia2DBLP rdf:type void:Linkset ;
>>              void:target :DBLP .
>>
>> So, it is a linking *from* DBpedia *to* DBLP; as RDF is a direct graph,
>> this makes sense quite a lot (the subject 'sits' in DBpedia, the object in
>> DBLP).

That smells very wrong - links work both ways (the implied inverse).
Uniformity of linkage. Making an artificial distinction - pragmatic
reasons?

(c.f. http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/72  )

>> IIRC, we had your option in mind as well [1] but decided to go for the
>> current modeling due to the above reasons. Actually, as I think, the two
>> modelings are equivalent, just with reversed directions:

But I can't actually see anything in the vocab I'd want to change, so
feel free to ignore the above :-)

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 
http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Saturday, 29 November 2008 14:11:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:18 UTC