W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Triple materialization at publisher level

From: Giovanni Tummarello <g.tummarello@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 23:18:56 +0200
Message-ID: <s2r210271541004061418z59ed1fa2qbeb4253365a1b7eb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>
Cc: public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Wrt this,
i feel like sharing how we address this issue in Sindice and the tools
we provide.
We do materialization at central level following recursively the links
to ontologies e.g. by resolving property names.

This allows data producers to be consideraly more concise in the
markup (e.g. think of RDFa pages) and indeed skip all the of the
materialization itself

A tool to test how many inferred triples you get out of your explicit
ones once full materialization is performed is the Sindice web data
inspector

http://sindice.com/developers/inspector

e.g. here it shows the ontologies used in a simple foaf files

http://sindice.com/developers/inspector/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fg1o.net%2Ffoaf.rdf&doReasoning=true#ontologies

and the inferred triples are shown in the other tab

http://sindice.com/developers/inspector/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fg1o.net%2Ffoaf.rdf&doReasoning=true#triples

at any time, clients can exploit the full machinery either live (API doc)

http://sindice.com/developers/inspector/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fg1o.net%2Ffoaf.rdf&doReasoning=true#api

or via the cache (at break neck speed is ok here, served directly by hbase)

http://sindice.com/search/page?q=g1o.net+foaf+giovanni+tummarello&qt=term&url=http%3A%2F%2Fg1o.net%2Ffoaf.rdf%23me#api


hopes this helps
Giovanni


On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The announcement of the Linked Data Patterns book[1] prompted me to
> raise this question, which I haven't yet seen discussed on its own. If
> I'm missing something, please point me to the relevant archives.
>
> The question is: should publishers of RDF data explicitly include
> (materialize) triples that are implied by the ontologies or rules used;
> and if yes, to what extent?
>
> For example, should it be
>        exspecies:14119 skos:prefLabel "Jellyfish" .
>        ex:bob a foaf:Person .
> or
>        exspecies:14119 skos:prefLabel "Jellyfish" ;
>                rdfs:label "Jellyfish" .
>        ex:bob a foaf:Person , foaf:Agent .
> ?
>
> The reason I find this worthy of attention is because there seems to be
> a gap between simple RDF processing and reasoning. It's easy to find an
> RDF library for your favourite language, fill a graph with some data and
> do useful things with it, but it's somewhat harder to set up proper
> RDFS/OWL reasoning over it, not to mention the added requirements for
> computational power.
>
> I think this is one area where a general "best practice" or design
> pattern can be developed.
>
> [1] http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/
>
> --
> Vasiliy Faronov
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 21:19:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:26 UTC