W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Simple Linked Data Publishing For Non Programmers

From: Yury Katkov <katkov.juriy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:41:52 +0400
Message-ID: <CAAT7DEFfgpT30dAoDwMs07fYZeqe2CVCfAF=e0U96ndgs-W18g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Hello Kingsley!

I have read your post and I think it's great initiative. Some improvements
that I can suggest:
* the topic of an example is not good. Why do I want to describe myself in
yet another language? I have several dozens of profiles in social networks
already. Every time I tried using foaf example I watched the puzzlement on
my listeners' faces. Better example is something related with government
data or in the last resort something from Dbpedia.
* I prefer moving from the very tiny examples to the bigger ones. This
example is way too big for the first one. I think it would be better
to construct it step by step.
* don't use prefixes at the beginning. Prefixes are hard: all these
triangular brackets pops up and dissapear again, the colon sign is a bit
confusing. In the first example it's easier to just show full URIs.
* some more time is needed to explain <> thing
* I don't think that you should mention WebID, but I really don't know if
it's in common usage now. Probably not.
* Pictures may be helpful. Here are the pictures that I draw for my
tutorials (warning! It's Russian!) [1]
* The overall look of the last part of the manual reminds me the Open Link
Software manuals. I'd rather get rid of all services except one or two of
the most popular: probably just Dropbox.

What do you think about moving this manual to semanticweb.org wiki? It
would be easier to improve it that way.
[1]
http://linkeddata.ru/index.php/Пример_последовательного_построения_SPARQL-запроса
-----
Yury Katkov




On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

> On 7/25/12 4:45 PM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
>
>> Hello Kingsley,
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:31:32PM -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>>> One of the fundamental misconceptions about Linked Data is the
>>> assumption that Web-scale publication is a complex process, utterly
>>> beyond the capabilities of end-users that are already capable of
>>> creating, editing, and saving a document to a local or network drive.
>>>
>>> I've written a detailed post [1] showcasing how anyone can publish
>>> Linked Data via a Turtle document ...
>>>
>> I showed your post to my wife - who has been working in online publishing
>> for
>> more than 10 years. She has worked with many web content management
>> systems
>> and is able to read and write HTML markup.
>>
>
> Okay.
>
>
>
>> Like I expected, she lost you in the second paragraph.
>>
>
> Okay, and what exactly was that?
>
>
>    Maybe she would be able
>> to learn linked data like she learned HTML - the hard way.
>>
>
> HTML isn't the route here, really. The journey is all about structured
> data representation using hyperlinks as a denotation and data access
> mechanism.
>
>
>    But it would in
>> fact be much harder because this time, she would have no reason to learn
>> it
>> and no tool to try out changes and see immediate *results*.
>>
>
> Again, I beg to differ. If she has any desire to for her work to be
> discovered serendipitously without the markup tedium of HTML then Turtle is
> a potential short cut.
>
> My example may actually be a little verbose re. Turtle, so how about
> telling her to adapt the following to her situation and then upload to a
> DropBox or Amazon S3 bucket (I've left the others out since they require a
> proxy due to mime type handling problems):
>
> ## Don't touch any of this
> @prefix owl:  <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/**owl#<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>>
> .
> @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/**rdf-schema#<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>>
> .
> @prefix wdrs: <http://www.w3.org/2007/05/**powder-s#<http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#>>
> .
> @prefix opl: <http://www.openlinksw.com/**schemas/cert#<http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/cert#>>
> .
> @prefix cert: <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/**cert#<http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#>>
> .
> @prefix : <#> .
>
> ## Who Are You?
>
> :this foaf:name "{enter-your-firstname-and-**lastname-here}" .
> :this foaf:firstName "{first-name}" .
> :this foaf:familyName "{last-name}" .
> :this foaf:nick "{nick-name}" .
>
> ## Some Web Pages You Have Already
>
> :this foaf:page {Twitter-Home-Page-URL} .
> :this foaf:page {Facebook-Home-Page-URL} .
> :this foaf:page {G+-Home-Page-URL} . .
> :this foaf:page {LinkedIn-Home-Page-URL} .
> :this foaf:page {Personal-Blog-Home-Page-URL} .
>
>
> ## Done ##
>
> I am also going to repeat this test with my Wife.
>
>
>> Giovanni Tummarello recently summarized it all very good recently:
>>
>>   http://www.mail-archive.com/**public-lod@w3.org/msg11194.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/public-lod@w3.org/msg11194.html>
>>
>
> Well, Giovanni speaks of a specific scenario and then applies it to Linked
> Data generically. There are no situations where that approach actually
> reflects broad reality about Linked Data.
>
>
>
>> We have to be honest with ourselves about this technology. Whose problems
>> does
>> it solve ?
>>
>
> I am going to give you a simple answer, one I am sure I've given in the
> past re. Linked Data.
>
> Problem: structured data representation, access, and integration across
> disparate data sources.
>
> Solution: Use the power of the well known entity-attribute-value model,
> enhanced with URI based hyperlinks, to address structured data
> representation, access, and integration.
>
> How:
> Remember what structured data actually is, how its expressed, and
> transmitted over a network. Then remember that entity-attribute-value
> modelling has historically provided a solution to real-world data modelling
> albeit challenged in the realm of scalability. Incorporate de-refrencable
> URIs as a denotation/naming mechanism for the entity, attribute, and value
> (optionally) slots which then makes the structured data webby. Remember to
> have each URI (as is the case with the Web already) resolve to useful
> information, ideally to documents bearing structured content in the same
> entity-attribute-value structure.
>
> What not to do:
>
> Start the narrative with the letters RDF (even if you know RDF is really
> about EAV/CR + URIs en route to relationship semantics embellishments from
> the likes of RDFS and OWL).
>
>
>    Who can understand it ?
>>
>
> Very simple, but that depends "who" is "whom" . Anyway, assuming the basic
> user of a computer that has saved a Word Document and an Excel Spreadsheet,
> you can explain as follows:
>
> The HTML dominated Web of today is like a using Microsoft Word with the
> ability to use hyperlinks to refer to other Word Docs (on your local
> machine or network) via hyperlinks.
>
> The Linked Data aspect of the Web is like using Microsoft Excel with the
> ability to refer to cells by row-by-column coordinates (addresses) or by
> cell names. Linked Data is about resources that are like spreadsheets with
> hyperlink based references that also enable you refer to other cells (by
> address or name) in other spreadsheets across workbooks, other local
> spreadsheets, remote spreadsheets on your local area network, and the
> internet.
>
>
>  Are the tools usable in practise ?
>>
>
> Of course they are. But I can't force you to accept that fundamental point
> even though there's been ample evidence of that since 2007.
>
>
>  My
>> answers to these questions are not optimistic.
>>
>
> Mine will always be.
>
>
>> I understand that all these answers can change with time and some day we
>> may
>> have the bright future you are seeing.
>>
>
> Question for you, if you don't mind. Which of the following are useless,
> by virtue of questionable tools and/or utility comprehension?
>
> 1. World Wide Web
> 2. ODBC (Open Database Connectivity)
> 3. Java Database Connectivity (JDBC)
> 4. Microsoft Entity Frameworks (a component of ADO.NET)
> 5. X.500 Directories
> 6. Hyperlinks
> 7. URIs.
>
>
>  But I would not take that for granted.
>> There is much work to do.
>>
>
> There is always much work to do. Otherwise, our innovation continuum will
> come to a grinding halt :-)
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael Brunnbauer
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about>
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 22:42:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:41 UTC