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

Re: LOV (was Re: Cultural Heritage Data)

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:47:09 +0000
To: Pierre-Yves Vandenbussche <py.vandenbussche@gmail.com>
CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|bd7bcc863a76d2c2fe486dd0d756db91o4MGpu02hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|F354AB2A-A1F9-4D8A-AC0D-C1C1CEC11A88@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Excellent - I'm glad I asked - that makes sense.
I see I am probably misreading
http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_akt.html
And I may have been misreading those two colours.
But it is actually the case that you say AKT voaf:reliesOn dcterms,, since voaf:metadataVoc is a sub property of voaf:reliesOn.
(As I now understand the tree is saying on that page.)
And of course that means that  dcterms voaf:usedBy AKT.
I still worry that this looks rather misleading, but I can see why it happens.
Best
Hugh

On 23 May 2012, at 10:56, Pierre-Yves Vandenbussche wrote:

> 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/
> 
> 
> 

-- 
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 15:53:15 UTC

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