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

Re: Simple Linked Data Publishing For Non Programmers

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:05:51 -0400
Message-ID: <50107BCF.5050200@openlinksw.com>
To: Yury Katkov <katkov.juriy@gmail.com>
CC: public-lod@w3.org
On 7/25/12 6:41 PM, Yury Katkov wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but the issue is this: those profile aren't associated with 
fine-grained structured data sources. Put differently, you've described 
yourself in Word documents that are Web accessible. The goal of Linked 
Data is to make the structured content in the Word docs (so to speak) 
more accessible via a resource that has the characteristics of a 
3-column spreadsheet where every cell is named using a hyperlink, and 
each of the 3-columns in the spreadsheet has a specific role with 
regards to content:

Cell #1 - Description Subject Name (a hyperlink)
Cell #2 - Attribute/Predicate Name (a hyperlink)
Cell #3 - Typed Literal or Name (a hyperlink).

> Every time I tried using foaf example I watched the puzzlement on my 
> listeners' faces.

Yes, notice I said nothing about FOAF bar use of namespaces in my 
hyperlinks.

> Better example is something related with government data or in the 
> last resort something from Dbpedia.

There is no golden example for an inherently diverse community. All one 
can do is accumulate a collection of examples that broaden the range of 
targets etc..  That said, I am happy to evolve the collection of 
examples since the process costs me very little time.

> * I prefer moving from the very tiny examples to the bigger ones.

Yes, I think my opening example was a little too verbose.

> This example is way too big for the first one.

Yes, as per comment above.

> 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
Ah! As per my response to the G+ post, there is a specific reason why I 
am using Turtle. Remember, my thesis is fundamentally about the ability 
to deploy 5 star Linked Data without the problems associated with:

1. domain ownership
2. web server administrative control
3. explicit content negotiation
4. any other matter that opens up the httpRange-14 can or worms.

Basically, that having an account with one of the following services is 
all you need to publish Linked Data:

1. Amazon S3
2. DropBox
3. Google Drive -- but you have to mount these folders using something 
like our ODS-Briefcase (aka. ODrive) since Google Drive only recognizes 
HTML and image formats.
4. Microsoft SkyDrive -- ditto
5. Box.net -- ditto .


> a bit confusing. In the first example it's easier to just show full URIs.

Yes, and in the past I would have started with N-Triples too. But here's 
the problem, it doesn't support relative URIs and other bits of clever 
syntax sugar in Turtle. Thus, you can't successfully publish Linked Data 
in the manner I espouse using N-Triples. In addition, the use prefixes 
can be explained and easily appreciated especially when users really 
understand how much can be achieved with the 2-5 GB of free storage 
offered by these services.

Like many things in the realm, the power of Turtle hasn't been explained 
to most. Also, and sadly so, Turtle's journey to recommendation status 
took way too long leaving RDF/XML deficiencies to obscuring all paths to 
Linked Data comprehension and appreciation.

> * some more time is needed to explain <> thing

Not really, we are publishing structured content via a document. The <> 
denotes the document at content construction time while expanding to an 
actual deployment URL post publication.

> * I don't think that you should mention WebID, but I really don't know 
> if it's in common usage now. Probably not.

I commented it out because, what comes next is an end to end WebID 
demonstration showing how placing your public key in such a document is 
all you need to get going with Web-scale verifiable identity driven by 
Linked Data.

> * Pictures may be helpful. Here are the pictures that I draw for my 
> tutorials (warning! It's Russian!) [1]

Well I have quite a few Russian team members.

> * 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.

Remember, there are no silver bullets. I don't do specificity as I 
firmly believe in choice. I am not writing these guides to promote one 
service over another so singly out DropBox is a comprise of my basic 
instincts etc..

>
> What do you think about moving this manual to semanticweb.org 
> <http://semanticweb.org> wiki?

Nothing, you fork the thing, that's the way of the Web :-)

> It would be easier to improve it that way.
Please proceed. The more the merrier.

> [1] 
> http://linkeddata.ru/index.php/Пример_последовательного_построения_SPARQL-запроса 
> <http://linkeddata.ru/index.php/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_SPARQL-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B0>
> -----
> Yury Katkov

Thanks!

Kingsley
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Kingsley Idehen 
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto: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#> .
>     @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
>     @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
>     @prefix wdrs: <http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#> .
>     @prefix opl: <http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/cert#> .
>     @prefix 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
>
>
>     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
>     <http://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/%7Ekidehen>
>     Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>     Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>     LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 23:05:20 UTC

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