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

Re: RDF Dataset Notifications

From: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:52:42 +0100
Message-ID: <k2vf323a4471004180852qbfc08532q4380b81ae01e297f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Cc: Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, dataset-dynamics@googlegroups.com
Hi,

2010/4/17 Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>:
> Nice summary! This is a most important topic. I think the Dataset
> Dynamics Group [1] is very relevant to this, so I've CC:ed that list.
> (Note: posting to that requires membership.)

While I'd seen some of the output from the Vienna workshop (I was
there!) I wasn't aware that the group existed, so apologies for that.
I'll have a look at the group archives.

> Also, the W3C eGov group may be of interest to you, where work is
> currently under way to take the dcat vocabulary forwards [2]. See e.g.
> [3], and my followup [4] which focuses on this aspect of datasets
> (outlined in the COURT project [5]).

Yep. I'm a member of the eGov IG and one of the reasons I included
"Dataset Notifications" is to support some of the use cases from
there.

> For the needs I've had so far, Atom seems a very viable way forward
> (and pubsubhubbub is a very powerful extension to that method).
> However, it would be very beneficial to the community if the different
> RDF vocabularies (i.e. AtomOwl [6], those listed at [7], and OPM [8])
> could be consolidated somehow. Especially for logging and RDF-based
> data store implementation purposes. One thing lacking in these models
> seems to be representing deletions (see e.g. [9] for an openvocab
> extension to AtomOwl for those).

Do you mean rationalising vocabularies so that there's a clear way to
use Atom to syndicate RDF updates, or an RDF mapping for Atom. While
related I think these are two different goals.

> How/if this can be related to SIOC is another interesting question. I
> think care should be taken to differentiate between the domain
> described by the content and the (mechanical) way datasets, their
> repositories, modifications and syndications are described. To keep
> things orthogonal.

Agreed.

> My take is basically close to a resource (or even named graph)
> oriented approach. I consider (atom) entries as a package of one or
> more closely related information resources sharing a common topic (say
> a document, person, vocabulary or a data(sub)set). In my work I store
> all RDF extractable from such an entry in a timestamped context
> (corresponding to the entry itself). I think this is also close to how
> many content repositories (e.g. DSpace and Fedora) are (or should be)
> modelled.

Yes, I think a resource oriented approach will fit well with many
existing protocols and formats.

> I'm thinking that the dataset dynamics group may be the most
> appropriate forum to take this further. What do you think? It would be
> great to have it aligned with the dcat work as well (and/or void+dady,
> depending on whether these progress together).

I'll look at signing up to the list. Barring incorporation of
comments/feedback, I'm done with my first pass through this as I
wanted to clarify for myself the different trade-offs and integration
patterns.

Cheers,

L.

-- 
Leigh Dodds
Programme Manager, Talis Platform
Talis
leigh.dodds@talis.com
http://www.talis.com
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2010 15:53:15 UTC

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