W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-tap@w3.org > June 2004

Re: TAP definition of Terrorist

From: Rob McCool <robm@robm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:10:23 -0700
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-tap@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040614121023.C7997@flapjack.stanford.edu>

> Lots more. Thanks for sharing the new version. I like that the new
> version exposes the source of the claims. Very neat. 
> I'd still be interested to see a definition (just plain old prose, 
> not FOL/OWL etc) for this class.

That's not even a very good example of the sources being shown. Go to ontap
stanford.edu on port 8080 and retrieve 
for a better example. You may or may not get through based on the time of
day, it's my development server.

> Ah, that explains the slant. They're in the news today btw:
> http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=83F3C459-47EE-4A24-82943B3856E793F0

Saw that. Wonderful.

> > about it is this one:
> >   http://ksl.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-03-15.html
> > It's called "Semantic Issues in Web Scale Knowledge Aggregation" and it
> > details many of these sorts of issues, including the two you mention, the
> > problem of point of view and the problem of time.
> Looks interesting, I think I saw this or a draft before from Guha.
> I'll have a closer look...

If the .doc format scares you I can make a pdf :)

> > A more detailed paper describing first steps toward solving these troubles
> > during aggregation is here:
> >   http://tap.stanford.edu/contexts.pdf
> Ah that was the one I saw. Will re-read.

This one talks more about the solutions, the other paper talks about the
problems. It's an interesting pile.

> I was thinking at a different granularity. It's more than people like me
> who have other RDF vocabs that TAP could fit nicely into might be warier
> of endorsing its usage (in tools and software) if it appears to have too
> much stuff scraped from dodgy US govt sources. In particular, a lot
> of Europeans are particularly sensitive about such things in the last
> year or so. TAP's got a reasonably good chance of being the first big 
> and cross-domain instance-oriented RDF data source that people start to 
> base things around. But the more controversial pieces there are, the 
> harder it is to claim TAP as a common base for everyone to build on.

Can't imagine why people would be upset with US govt in the past year or so. 

The newer TAP KBs are also very modular; if you want to avoid dodgy US govt 
sources just leave out tap-politics.rdf. We're also working to keep 
documentation around about where everything came from, and then phase out
a lot of the instance data we gathered in 2001-2002 when we can't find 
corroborating sources. That will go a long way toward allowing people to
filter the data based on their needs.

> Yep, Wikipedia seems to be doing pretty well on this front.
> BTW re collaborative data production, have you seen MusicBrainz? The 
> project seems to be maturing nicely. They have RDF-friendly data model
> and Web service interfaces, and CD/Album/etc track listings for a lot of
> artists, as well as TRM digital fingerprints of audio recordings.
> http://www.musicbrainz.org/
> http://www.ldodds.com/blog/archives/000130.html is draft of a schema.
> http://www.musicbrainz.org/MM/ outlines the data exposed, with examples
> and protocol detail (HTTP-based).
> Some data dumps can be found in
> ftp://ftp.musicbrainz.org/pub/musicbrainz although I can't connect right
> now.
> I wonder what the overlap is between TAP and MB... 	

I looked at it earlier. It's on my todo list to tie into it better; it's a 
large free database of musicians, their albums, and their songs, which helps
a lot for putting learning systems into creating scrapers. I'm going to be
looking at that a lot more closely over the summer.
Received on Monday, 14 June 2004 15:10:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:14 UTC