W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Granular dereferencing ( prop by prop ) using REST + LinkedData; Ideas?

From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:27:53 +0000
Message-ID: <82593ac00901050327k57688039n86b77b0f6bc1ca19@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bernhard Schandl" <bernhard.schandl@univie.ac.at>
Cc: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Aldo Bucchi" <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>

Hi Bernhard!

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Bernhard Schandl
<bernhard.schandl@univie.ac.at> wrote:
> Hi Yves,
>> Indeed, that's a bad example - replace it by "find here persons born
>> in NYC and their birth date". It is easy enough to find examples that
>> involve more than just one property in the target document, e.g. "Find
>> here female scientists born in NYC", "Find here the phone numbers of
>> the Tabulator's developers", "Find the start time of chords on that
>> audio signal", "Find here my latitude and longitude and the time at
>> which they were captured"...
> What is the advantage of publishing examples instead of just pointing to the
> vocabularies used in the data sets? I think it might be difficult to find
> representative examples for, let's say, dbpedia data: chances are high that
> you miss some aspects.
> Also what is the point of providing explicit examples instead of just ASKing
> the endpoint if it returns useful data?

Well, this is about auto-discovery - this is about finding the
endpoint that could answer that query, or finding a RDF document
holding this information.

> I think it might be sufficient to just publish which vocabularies are used
> by a certain endpoint. Even dbpedia uses a restricted set of vocabularies,
> so if a client would know in advance which vocabularies are used, it could
> decide if the data returned from this endpoint is useful. This could be even
> more restricted to publishing "application profiles" of vocabularies; i.e.,
> subsets of the vocabularies that are actually used within a dataset.

Hmm. Won't this end-up defining almost one application profile per
dataset or RDF documents? Are there really canonical application
profiles? For DBTune, for example, it wouldn't be useful to say that
each dataset use the Music Ontology, FOAF, etc. You need a finer grain
to state that Jamendo deals with tags, artists, and Creative Commons
records, Musicbrainz with editorial information, the BBC John Peel
sessions with musical performances, etc. Instead of creating one
"application profile" for each (how would I do that?), I'd rather just
point to a typical example.


> Best regards, Bernhard
Received on Monday, 5 January 2009 11:28:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:54 UTC