W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > April 2007

Re: SWEO / FAQ comments

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:56:05 +0200
Message-ID: <4613A065.9010205@w3.org>
To: Uldis Bojars <uldis.bojars@deri.org>
Cc: 'Benjamin Nowack' <bnowack@appmosphere.com>, public-sweo-ig@w3.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thanks.

I made it a bit shorter; I also pulled the semanticweb.org link which is
currently inactive. Here is how the section looks now:

[[[
There are several portals that collect information on existing
ontologies. A good example is SchemaWeb. Another one is the
“PingTheSemanticWeb” service which collects information about new RDF
documents on the Web based on “pings” sent by applications generating
data and on RDF autodiscovery links found by people browsing the Web. It
currently contains information about ~7 million RDF files. There is also
a search engine, called Swoogle, which specializes on searching Semantic
Web documents.
]]]

Ivan

Uldis Bojars wrote:
> "# Where do I find ontologies, terminologies, or datasets for my
> applications?" 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Where2
> 
> There is PingTheSemanticWeb [1] (PTSW) service which collects information
> about new RDF documents on the web, based on "pings" sent by applications
> generating data and on RDF autodiscovery links found by people browsing the
> web (using Semantic Radar extension for Firefox). It currently contains
> information about ~7 million RDF files.  
> 
> PTSW acts as a "ping" multiplexer which received notifications and provides
> them to other applications that need RDF data. E.g., it is the only source
> of information that doap:store [2] is using. Unlike search engines it does
> not crawl the web, but it's strength is up-to-date data received via
> automatic pings and a simple API that lets other Semantic Web applications
> to get lists of RDF sources from it.
> 
> [1] http://pingthesemanticweb.com/
> [2] http://doapstore.org/
> 
> Uldis
> 
> [ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:55 PM
> To: Benjamin Nowack
> Cc: public-sweo-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SWEO / FAQ comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benjamin Nowack wrote:
>> General impression: Wow! I found some of the individual
> 
> 
> 
> And wow! for the review:-) Thanks a lot Benjamin. I have only a few
> comments below, all the other comments have been simply taken over...
> 
> Thanks again
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> [snip]
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Folskonomi
>> s/folksonomies (microformats, tagging, .)/folksonomies, microformats,
> tagging,
>> ./ (as MFs are independent of folksonomies)
>> it is necessary *to* add additional
>> s/keywordsearch/keyword search/ or keyword-search?
>> The third paragraph starts with "There are, of course, other differences.
>> Microformats ...". It isn't clear which differences are meant, those 
>> between MFs and ontologies, or between MFs and folksonomies?
>>> "developed very quickly by communities"
>> It's actually faster to create an RDF vocab than to go through the MF
>> process. Folksonomies can be developed very quickly, but they don't 
>> tend to be small.
> 
> Well, if I compare a hCard to, say, a music ontology, they are smaller.
> And the comparison of the speed is not on the process; because the
> microformat vocabularies are relatively simple, it is usually relatively
> straightforward to define them technically, unlike, say, and OWL ontology.
> 
>> And there is eRDF which also allows to add semantic markup to HTML.
> 
> 
> This is how the last paragraph looks like now:
> 
> [[[
> Note that the GRDDL Working Group has developed a "bridge" to the
> microformats approach; it defines a general procedure whereby
> microformats stored in an XHTML file can be transformed into RDF
> on-the-fly. Also, the Semantic Web Deployment group's work on RDFa
> develops an XHTML1.1 module that gives the possibility to use virtually
> any RDF vocabularies as annotations of the XHTML content; a bit like
> microformats with somewhat more rigor and a better way of integrating
> different vocabularies within the same document. Finally, eRDF
> (developed by Talis) offers a formalism somewhere between the two: one
> can add general RDF data to an (X)HTML page without the need for a new
> module, although with restrictions on the type of RDF vocabularies that
> can be used this way.
> ]]]
> 
> [snip]
>> I don't know where to squeeze it in exactly, but I think one huge
>> add-on of RDF is the ability to easily re-use combined (= enriched) 
>> data as input for further applications ("mashup chaining"). This
>> bcomes possible as RDF is a data technology while Web 2.0 focuses
>> on APIs.
> 
> 
> I have added, in the Web 2.0 section, the following paragraph:
> 
> [[[
> In many cases, using RDF-based techniques makes the mashing up process
> easier, mainly when data collected by one application is reused by
> another one somewhere down the line. The general nature of RDF makes
> this "mashup chaining" straightforward, which is not always the case for
> simpler Web 2.0 applications.
> ]]]
> 
> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Does
>> "stored in, say, in RDF/XML" => "stored in, say, RDF/XML"
> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#pout
>> s/violating the the validity/violating the validity/
>> s/microformat approach/microformats approach/
>> And eRDF allows to add a usable subset of RDF to XHTML w/o 
>> breaking validity.
> 
> 
> This is how it looks like now:
> 
> [[[
> Unfortunately, it is currently not possible to incorporate full RDF into
> XHTML without violating the validity of the resulting XHTML, except for
> the usage of the meta and the link elements in the header. The best
> solution is to store the RDF separately and use the URI-s to refer to
> the XHTML page and the link element in the XHTML page to refer to the
> RDF content. However, work is going on for a better integration of RDF
> into documents. The GRDDL Working Group has recently developed a
> "bridge" to the microformats approach, and the Semantic Web Deployment
> group's work on RDFa develops an additional XHTML1.1 module that gives
> the possibility to use virtually any RDF vocabularies as annotations of
> the XHTML content. Finally, eRDF (developed by Talis) offers a formalism
> somewhere between the two: one can add general RDF data to an (X)HTML
> page without problems with validity, although with restrictions on the
> type of RDF vocabularies that can be used this way.
> ]]]
> 
> 
>> Ben
> 
>> --
>> Benjamin Nowack
>> http://bnode.org/
> 
> 
> 

- --

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGE6BldR3hQzQ/Gj0RAnsIAJ9fXaoqRWLY+6w80a8CfLRYDVrykgCglFhm
5sBEGUKTOlp1/2xBx3Dis88=
=c7L8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 12:55:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:37 GMT