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

Re: LOV (was Re: Cultural Heritage Data)

From: Pierre-Yves Vandenbussche <py.vandenbussche@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:56:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+D1OanuvjujDtYt5AttG8pA_8HRai+b9STiy4mx2waLH8ZeKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Hugh,

actually, LOV states there is a relation between AKT and DC of type
*voaf:metadataVoc
*and not reliesOn* *(
http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_akt.html )
This relation means AKT vocabulary uses DC to describe its own metadata
(like dc:title, etc.)

I agree that one can easily confuse colors :)

voaf:reliesOn is a very general relation and is practically never used.
Instead we prefer some more meaningful relations (reliesOn subproperties)

Pierre-Yves Vandenbussche.


On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Antoine,
> Many thanks.
> Actually, that prompts me to ask a question about LOV.
> I see that LOV says the AKT ontology voaf:reliesOn dcterms (with a very
> big circle).
> This puzzled me because I did not think there was any connection between
> AKT and DC, so I drilled in.
> I found, as far as I can tell, it is because the AKT vocabulary itself (at
> http://www.aktors.org/ontology/portal ) uses dct:creator, and documents
> that use the AKT vocab use dc:creator, dc:title, etc., about the documents
> and content itself.
> This was not my intuitional reading of voaf:reliesOn - was it intended?
> And if so, is it widespread in LOV?
> (I realise this is probably a hard problem in general!)
> Best
> Hugh
>
> On 22 May 2012, at 13:30, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>
> > Hi Hugh,
> >
> >
> >> Well Dominic's site is definitely not isolated.
> >> It is very well linked at the ontology level, not instance, however.
> >> I thought his question was timely, since TimBL asked the question at
> the panel at LOD2012 as to whether the criteria for inclusion in the LOD
> Cloud should be changed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yep. As far as I'm concerned, something like a sort of mix between the
> LOD cloud and the LOV one (http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/) would be
> really interesting.
> > But still someone needs to volunteer (as opposed to "being requested")
> to do it :-)
> >
> >
> >> Personally I think it is a shame that such a resource should lose a lot
> of its visibility because it does not pass the rules.
> >> And I think that putting links in simply to get into the Cloud is not
> something that should be encouraged - links should be put in because they
> are sensible.
> >> Without visibility, others (such as you!) will be less aware of it and
> so not build the links that would actually bring it into the cloud without
> Dominic doing anything (as you are now thinking of doing, since Dominic has
> made you more aware of it).
> >
> >
> > Yep. In fact this is part of the reasons why the Library Linked Data
> incubator decided to create its own group on The Data Hub (
> http://thedatahub.org/group/lld). It helped us to make the datasets from
> our community more visible to our community, without making it a hard
> pre-requisite to adhere to other communities' requirements.
> > Some nodes (or group of nodes) at
> >
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld-vocabdataset/#Library_Linked_Data_at_CKAN
> > are indeed "isolated", in the LOD cloud sense.
> >
> > Antoine
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On 22 May 2012, at 08:42, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Dominic,
> >>>
> >>> I guess that it was with the LOD *cloud* that you had issues. It looks
> a bit severe, but I think I understand the motivations: if the cloud
> admitted isolated nodes, it would have many of them, and that would look
> weird... But of course that does not make your contribution less
> interesting. On the contrary, the BL work has incredible potential for our
> domain!
> >>> Btw let me know if you're interested in links with data.europeana.eu.
> We can maybe try something...
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Antoine
> >>>
> >>> PS: I'm copying the email to the LOD-LAM list: I suppose some people
> will be interested to continue the discussion with you there!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> +1 (best I can do).  FWIW, the day buying your way in ceases to be
> the certain method of acceptance will be a very good day for all.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >>> --
> >>>> *From:* Dominic Oldman<DOLDMAN@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk>
> >>>> *To:* public-lod@w3.org
> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 21, 2012 1:10 PM
> >>>> *Subject:* Cultural Heritage Data
> >>>>
> >>>> Hugh suggested that I post this.
> >>>> We are currently working with other museums aligning our catalogue
> data using the CIDOC-CRM ontology. We can now run single federated queries
> based on semantic alignment without the need to insert specific linking
> triples. When we applied to advertise our site on the LOD cloud we were
> turned down because we hadnít inserted specific links to other data
> sources. I realise that I could just stuff in a few links to Dbpedia to get
> accepted - but given that we can harmonise data to a very high degree with
> another open CRM RDF data source perhaps we should still be allowed formal
> acceptance to the open data community.
> >>>> Dominic Oldman
> >>>> *Deputy Head of IS *
> >>>> *IS Development Manager*
> >>>> *ResearchSpace Principal Investigator*
> >>>> *British Museum*
> >>>> +44 (0)20 73238796
> >>>> +44 (0)7980 865309
> >>>> www.BritishMuseum.org
> >>>> www.ResearchSpace.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Hugh Glaser,
>             Web and Internet Science
>             Electronics and Computer Science,
>             University of Southampton,
>             Southampton SO17 1BJ
> Work: +44 23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 23 8059 3045
> Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155 , Home: +44 23 8061 5652
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~hg/
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 09:57:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:39 UTC