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

Re: LDOW2009 Workshop now publishing Linked Data (was Re: Linked Data on the Web (LDOW2009) workshop papers online.)

From: Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:20:18 +0000
Message-ID: <89f622f10903201220m4046e305ofb32b4eb0ce7a82f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Knud Hinnerk Möller <knud.moeller@deri.org>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Hi Knud,

Just some short specifics in response...

2009/3/19 Knud Hinnerk Möller <knud.moeller@deri.org>:
> Hi again,
>
> On 19.03.2009, at 14:58, Tom Heath wrote:
>
>> Hi Knud :)
>>
>> 2009/3/19 Knud Hinnerk Möller <knud.moeller@deri.org>:
>>>
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
>>> great stuff, and nice you're using some of our swc vocabulary!
>>
>> Once a <http://data.semanticweb.org/ns/swc/ontology#DogfoodTsar>
>> always a <http://data.semanticweb.org/ns/swc/ontology#DogfoodTsar> ;)
>
> It's an unliftable curse!

No comment ;)

>>> I'd love to
>>> import the data into the dog food site - the more data we have there, the
>>> better. However, as your data is at the moment, only the people would
>>> show
>>> up as resources on our site, since everything else is in the ldow
>>> namespace.
>>
>> Good point!
>>
>>> Do you think you could generate an xml file as described in [1]? That
>>> would
>>> make the import task easiest and would generate RDF that integrates
>>> nicely
>>> with the rest of the dataset!
>>
>> No sign of [1] in your mail, but I think I follow you. So am I ok to
>> modify my script to mint URIs in the following namespace?
>> http://data.semanticweb.org/workshop/ldow/2009/
>
> ooops... [1] was supposed to point to
> http://data.semanticweb.org/documentation/user/faq#how_to_add
>
> You are absolutely ok to mint URIs in the dogfood namespace, as long as we
> manage to get the data into the site afterwards! The easiest way might be to
> produce the XML files as outlined in [1] (this time the link is really
> there! ;), but we should also manage to get it to work by adding the right
> triples in your RDFa. I should write up a list of triples that are necessary
> for the dogfood UI to make sense of the data - everything can be loaded, but
> not everything displays nicely at the moment.
>
>>> One comment about the modelling. You say:
>>>
>>> <http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2009/papers/ldow2009_paper11.pdf> a
>>> swrc:InProceedings .
>>>
>>> Would it not be nicer to have a separate URI for the paper and then link
>>> to
>>> the pdf? E.g.:
>>>
>>> <http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2009/papers/ldow2009_paper11> a
>>> swrc:InProceedings .
>>> <http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2009/papers/ldow2009_paper11> swrc:url
>>> <http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2009/papers/ldow2009_paper11.pdf> .
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> Yes, good point, this would make good sense. I'll make these
>> improvements when I have a spare moment.
>
> Very cool.
>
>> Before I spend too long on
>> that though, are there plans that you or anyone else knows about to
>> RDFize the data about all WWW2009 workshops etc? Would be a shame to
>> duplicate effort, though providing it at source does have a lot of
>> appeal.
>
> I just asked Daniel Schwabe if he knew if we could repeat the process from
> last year (take EasyChair data, convert with our script) for the main
> conference data. Let's see what comes out of that. I don't know anything
> about the workshops, though. I'd say there are three possibilities at the
> moment (in increasing order of effort involved):
>
> 1.) If you use EasyChair, take the data from there and convert with existing
> script. You need access to the XML output of EasyChair, though.
> 2.) send me the data in XML as per [1], so that I can convert it with the
> same script.
> 3.) generate the RDF yourself. That will probably need some iterations to
> get it right (or I will have to make the dogfood URI more robust!)

3. makes the most sense in this context, as we don't have access to
the EasyChair XML output and 2 would duplicate effort when 3 is
already in place.

>> Incidentally, I think there are some errors in
>> <http://data.semanticweb.org/workshop/LDOW/2008/rdf>. AFAICR there are
>> no hasAcronym and completeGraph properties in SWC.
>
> ouch, you spotted my vocabulary hacking there... those two properties are
> additions I came up with, which are unfortunately not yet reflected in the
> vocabulary source online. I'll correct that asap.

Aren't these both fairly generic properties that may best live
somewhere less conference-specific? Picking up on Damian's point, I'm
also not a huge fan of swc:url. In the past did we not just do sameAs
between the 'uri for the paper' and the uri for the corresponding pdf,
giving a bit of a handwave to any frbr-like issues? Having said that,
frbr:realization would seem a better way to proceed long-term, as
Damian suggests.

The curse lives on ;)

Have a nice weekend, and enjoy eating something else other than
DogFood. I'd recommend a good pizza.

Tom.

-- 
Dr Tom Heath
Researcher
Platform Division
Talis Information Ltd
T: 0870 400 5000
W: http://www.talis.com/
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 19:21:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:20 UTC