W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2011

Linked Data and Visualization Matters

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:49:52 -0400
Message-ID: <4DB1E9F0.80607@openlinksw.com>
To: Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On 4/22/11 4:40 PM, Daniel Schwabe wrote:
> Dear all,
> I'd like to take this opportunity to change the focus of the discussion.
>
> It seems to me this discussion is addressing a recurring problem we have been facing in the Semantic Web and, more pragmatically, in Linked Data - the way the ontology is specified and the way the ontology is*communicated*  (both vocabulary and instances). The various arguments pro/against each of the options posed in this thread are a good example that it is too difficult to do both at the same time.
>
> The ontology specification can have more rigid, perhaps less human-friendly syntax, as it should be machine-processable. It makes sense to keep it as concise and simple as possible.
>
> On the other hand, communicating about it, in various contexts, is a much more complex endeavor, and I believe it is unlikely that a single solution/approach will suffice for all situations.
> Therefore, I propose that we should*separate*   vocabularies dedicated to specifying how an author wants to*communicate*  (i.e., "talk", "present", "discuss", etc...) about an ontology. It should have a way to, among other things, better specify the particular types of context this form of communication for which this form is intended, and one could have many of them. In a way, something analogous to media types in CSS, but much more sophisticated. These presentations should not add any formal semantics to the resources described (yes, I realize this can be debatable from a more philosophical standpoint, since any form of communication necessarily adds some semantics - added by the recipient/reader, which may not have been exactly what was meant by the author )
>
> Then one could attach a property (e.g., iv:description) to a resource (including e.g., terms in vocabulary specifications) which would specify how this resource is to be "communicated" (e.g., displayed, spoken, etc...).
> If this becomes standard practice (e.g. how rdfs:label is today), tool makers can take advantage to produce better designer-oriented "pretty prints" of an ontology, or end-user-oriented versions, etc..., without changing the ontology definition itself.
>
> Thus, human readability of a vocabulary specification would not be such a major requirement as it seems to be, currently - Most people, including developers, would work with them through some specialized presentation form, most appropriate to his/her context.
>
> So perhaps we should start focusing on what these "communication"  vocabularies would look like...
>
> Just my 2c
> Daniel

All,

Like Data Quality, this is yet another important topic of discussion.

Daniel: I've used you post to open up this very important thread of 
discussion.


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 20:50:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:32 UTC