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

Re: data format for gathered information

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:40:13 -0500
Message-ID: <45E8536D.9040306@openlinksw.com>
CC: 'W3C SWEO IG' <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>

Leo Sauermann wrote:
> Hi SWEO, Kingsley,
>
> yes, the subjective aspect is important, everyone is a subject.
>
> Es begab sich aber da Kingsley Idehen zur rechten Zeit 02.03.2007 
> 14:01 folgendes schrieb:
>> I believe the SIOC community is completely open to these kinds of 
>> additions/enhancements to SIOC.
> if SIOC needs to be enhanced or additions, then it can take a very 
> long time until these enhancement are agreed by the SIOC community. As 
> we have a tight timeline, we cannot wait for this.
>
> If DC/RSS/FOAF/... and the other suggested vocabularies already 
> contain enough classes and properties, we have enough and can start 
> writing a tutorial how to markup data so that it can be used for SWEO ;-)
>
>>
>> Let's piece this all together, if we can't do it who will we expect 
>> the broader community to understand any of this? We need to connect 
>> all the shared vocabularies coherently :-) 
> Which classes and properties from SIOC are essentially needed beyond 
> the mentioned vocabularies?
> please add them to the wiki page, just add a new section on SIOC.
> For which information types listed in [2] do we need SIOC?
>
> perhaps you could give some comprehensive RDF examples how data 
> expressed in SIOC would look like in our case, please add some RDF 
> examples to the wiki page so that we can evaluate this better
>
> (see where there is already one example, just add more)
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/InfoGathering/DataVocabulary
>
> [2] 
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/InfoGathering/ClassificationOntology 
>
Leo,

I will do just that :-)

BTW - Also take a look at: 
http://wiki.sioc-project.org/index.php/TypesModule


Kingsley
>
> best
> Leo
>
>
> Es begab sich aber da Kingsley Idehen zur rechten Zeit 02.03.2007 
> 14:01 folgendes schrieb:
>>
>> Leo Sauermann wrote:
>>> Es begab sich aber da Ivan Herman zur rechten Zeit 01.03.2007 09:30 
>>> folgendes schrieb:
>>>> Hi Uldis,
>>>>
>>>> as I said in my previous mail, I do not know the details of SIOC 
>>>> and it
>>>> also seems that it is an evolving spec. That is all good. If *you* 
>>>> feel
>>>> that it can play the role of a 'glue' (and even let the technology
>>>> evolve in this direction if needed), then I have absolutely no problem
>>>> with it!
>>>>   
>>> as Uldis said, SIOC its a framework, which is beyond a vocabulary.
>>>
>>> Our goal is to gather information about projects and tutorials, and 
>>> I would focus on that goal. If the vocabulary we propose is SIOC we 
>>> would open a can of many more possible annotations, and we have many 
>>> "optional" things, beyond a minimal approach. I would go for a mix 
>>> of RDF vocabs that exactly capture the minimal, not less, not more.
>>>
>>> I think, all we need for information gathering is in foaf, rss, 
>>> skos, dc, doap (and the other vocabs mentioned on the wiki page) 
>>> already.
>> Leo,
>>
>> The idea behind the use of SIOC in this projects is to provide 
>> containment (expressed in RDF) for all the FOAF, SKOS, RSS, DC, and 
>> DOAP that you mention above.
>>
>> As per usual (with me) this is a suggestion. As we progress through 
>> this effort I am very confident that the thinking behind SIOC will 
>> crystallize. It doesn't need to become an unintended distraction at 
>> this point. The beauty of RDF is we can agree to disagree without 
>> dire consequences :-)
>>>
>>> As Ivan Herman pointed out,
>>> Dublin Core may even cover most things that are in DOAP.
>>>
>>> We, tech nerds being part of SWEO, are familiar with DOAP and SIOC, 
>>> but its definitly not comparable to the industry standard Dublin 
>>> Core, which people outside of SemWeb are aware of. Same with RSS, 
>>> there is a gazillion of RSS feeds in the world and a gazillion*n RSS 
>>> items.
>>> There is only a handful of skos, doap, foaf, sioc on the web. (sure, 
>>> the auto-generated FOAF from some social websites is funny, but I 
>>> don't know of any application that makes real use of the foaf data 
>>> around, parsing the foaf files, reusing the information of your 
>>> friends, etc).
>> Your comments are a little subjective. Also note that I don't 
>> understand how SIOC and Dublin Core are incompatible or how any of 
>> the suggestion re. SIOC imply mutual exclusivity relative to DC. SIOC 
>> is just about containment for instance data for these vocabularies 
>> (as I've already stated).
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can ask ourselves:
>>>
>>> Why should we use SIOC:Post if a ~gazillion of rss:Item already 
>>> exists to represent blog posts and developers are used to rss?
>> This is a superficial issue. I already have RSS instance data in SIOC 
>> without issue (i.e. doesn't adversely affect RSS or SIOC).
>>>
>>> Why should we use SIOC:community instead of foaf:Group?
>>> [http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_Group]
>>> " This concept is intentionally quite broad, covering informal and 
>>> ad-hoc groups, long-lived communities, organizational groups within 
>>> a workplace, etc. Some such groups may have associated 
>>> characteristics which could be captured in RDF (perhaps a 
>>> |foaf:homepage <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_homepage>|, 
>>> |foaf:name <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_name>|, mailing list 
>>> etc.)."
>> What's stops foaf:Group replacing sioc:Community in the worst case?
>>
>> I believe the SIOC community is completely open to these kinds of 
>> additions/enhancements to SIOC.
>>
>> Let's piece this all together, if we can't do it who will we expect 
>> the broader community to understand any of this? We need to connect 
>> all the shared vocabularies coherently :-)
>>
>> Kingsley
>>>
>>> best
>>> Leo
>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> I.
>>>>
>>>> Uldis Bojars wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>> Ivan,
>>>>>
>>>>> SIOC as a framework can act as the 'glue'.
>>>>> I agree that if deciding to reuse an ontology we should use it for 
>>>>> what it
>>>>> is meant for. Let me clarify some details about SIOC.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) It already uses FOAF and SKOS
>>>>>
>>>>> SIOC re-uses FOAF to express information about persons and lets 
>>>>> you use SKOS
>>>>> to describe categories and tags. The largest part of data 
>>>>> generated by a
>>>>> community site is about posts (as there are more posts than there 
>>>>> are people
>>>>> and categories) expressed in SIOC and it already acts as a 'glue' 
>>>>> between
>>>>> FOAF and SKOS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Figure by John Breslin illustrating these relations:
>>>>> http://sioc-project.org/node/158
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Describing everything in RDF
>>>>>
>>>>> People want to provide information and comments about real-world 
>>>>> objects
>>>>> (Events, Videos, Books, Presentations, Wiki pages, CVs, ...) not 
>>>>> just about
>>>>> forum/blog posts. People also want to be able to say that their posts
>>>>> contain or are about these real-world objects. This question was 
>>>>> recently
>>>>> discussed by the SIOC community and a decision on how to do this 
>>>>> within the
>>>>> SIOC framework will be made within the next 2 weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> SIOC was made to be generic and some of the objects (Blog posts, 
>>>>> Mailing
>>>>> lists, Wiki pages) can be be naturally expressed as a sioc:Post.
>>>>> For other objects a sioc:Post itself is not a natural choice and 
>>>>> there's no
>>>>> need to "stretch" it. That's why we are thinking about a generic 
>>>>> class for
>>>>> these objects that will act as an "ubrella" for all kinds of 
>>>>> things. It does
>>>>> not need to contain actual properties to describe these things - 
>>>>> there are
>>>>> already ontologies out there to describe Projects, Books, etc. 
>>>>> What we need
>>>>> is a way how to talk about all these things [within sioc:Posts and in
>>>>> general] and a "crystallisation point" from which to point to the 
>>>>> different
>>>>> ontologies to use.
>>>>> Some types of relations that we want to express:
>>>>>  - a Post contains an Object (e.g., a review)
>>>>>  - a Post is about an Object (e.g., an project)
>>>>>  - a Post is categorised as category/tag/topic X  (currently 
>>>>> expressed with
>>>>> a sioc:topic and a URI which can [optionally] be a skos:Concept)
>>>>>
>>>>> We have similar questions to solve, would probably come to similar
>>>>> conclusions and can benefit from learning from the other. In fact, 
>>>>> the
>>>>> Semantic Web community is like any other community who wants to 
>>>>> publish
>>>>> information and discussions about things.
>>>>> If you have suggestions how to model this information then please 
>>>>> send them
>>>>> to SIOC-Dev list [1]. Note that when talking about a generic 
>>>>> "umbrella"
>>>>> class it does not really matter what namespace it is in as long as 
>>>>> there is
>>>>> one. If there is an existing vocabulary we can reuse it.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Community aspects of SIOC
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides expressing information about things in general there are some
>>>>> community site related SIOC usage patterns that can be useful:
>>>>>
>>>>> Discussions / comments about the information gathered can be 
>>>>> expressed as a
>>>>> sioc:Post + its properties. sioc:has_reply property is used to 
>>>>> link a post to its replies and comments.
>>>>> That's where SIOC fits in naturally.
>>>>>
>>>>> sioc:Community is a recent addition to ontology, introduced to 
>>>>> describe a
>>>>> collection of different things belonging to a community. 
>>>>> Basically, anything
>>>>> (website, mailing list, people) can be a part of it. It may used 
>>>>> to describe
>>>>> information about communities (a part of the gathered information) 
>>>>> in case
>>>>> when a community means more than a group of people.
>>>>> This concludes the introduction, hope it helps to clarify some 
>>>>> questions.
>>>>> SIOC is a live project and lessons learned from describing gathered
>>>>> information can also feed back into its development. Please feel 
>>>>> free to
>>>>> send comments and ask any questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 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, February 28, 2007 12:17 PM
>>>>> To: Leo Sauermann
>>>>> Cc: Danny Ayers; W3C SWEO IG; Kingsley Idehen; Benjamin Nowack; 
>>>>> Ian Davis
>>>>> Subject: Re: data format for gathered information
>>>>>
>>>>> Leo,
>>>>>
>>>>> it is a bit difficult to edit, because the page should reflect 
>>>>> concensus...
>>>>> so I prefer to comment and discuss here.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Using the doap, skos, etc, is obviously the way to go. Actually, 
>>>>> using
>>>>> skos is a great idea of yours!
>>>>>
>>>>> - I am not sure about the usage of RSS. I have the feeling that it 
>>>>> is a
>>>>> little bit of a misuse here. I wonder whether the full power of DC 
>>>>> is not
>>>>> enough here; not only the core dc terms like dc:title and such that
>>>>> everybody knows but, also, the dcterm vocabulary[1] I have the 
>>>>> impression
>>>>> that those, combined with maybe some extra properties of our own 
>>>>> may replace
>>>>> your choice of RSS. (to be checked)
>>>>>
>>>>> - For books and articles, I think we need something more 
>>>>> strucured, like
>>>>> BibTeX, in order to allow for, say, more scholarly usage. The 
>>>>> problem is
>>>>> that it is not 100% obvious how to represent bibtex in RDF, look 
>>>>> at my
>>>>> recent blog and the comments[2]. We may have to byte the bullet 
>>>>> and choose
>>>>> one or modify one).
>>>>>
>>>>> [As an aside, it was one of you guys, I think, who drew my 
>>>>> attention on
>>>>> BibSonomy[3] which uses nice features to store bibliographical 
>>>>> data as well,
>>>>> it is a pity that the bibtex they use is broken[2] otherwise we 
>>>>> could have
>>>>> used it)
>>>>>
>>>>> - I was looking at DOAP; its description on [4] refers to "DOAP is 
>>>>> a project
>>>>> to create an XML/RDF vocabulary to describe open source projects." 
>>>>> I was
>>>>> wondering whether it would also be suitable to describe 
>>>>> non-commercial
>>>>> projects, ie, where the 'open sourceness' is in DOAP.
>>>>> Sure, there are references to repositories and copyrights, but I 
>>>>> presume it
>>>>> is all right to ignore those when we talk about commercial projects.
>>>>> To be checked, nevertheless...
>>>>>
>>>>> - Whether the core 'glue', binding all that together, should be 
>>>>> SIOC, as
>>>>> Kingsley proposes, or something else, I am not sure. I must admit 
>>>>> I am not
>>>>> familiar with all the details of SIOC in this sense. I am a little 
>>>>> bit
>>>>> afraid (just like for RSS) to reuse something just because some of 
>>>>> the
>>>>> properties and classes are around that are close to what we want, 
>>>>> but it is
>>>>> not *really* meant for that. I know there is a fuzzy line there, 
>>>>> and may not
>>>>> apply to SIOC (as I said, I am not sure about that one), but we 
>>>>> should be
>>>>> careful about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sure other issues will pop up...
>>>>>
>>>>> Ivan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/
>>>>> [2] http://ivanherman.wordpress.com/2007/01/13/bibtex-in-rdf/
>>>>> [3] http://www.bibsonomy.org
>>>>> [4] http://usefulinc.com/doap/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Leo Sauermann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> perhaps read the wiki-page in parallel to this email thread.
>>>>>> DOAP, FOAF, etc are all mentioned there already, 
>>>>>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/InfoGathering/DataVocabulary 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benjamin, Ivan, you are free to edit the wiki page, just 
>>>>>> change/adapt it so that it reflects your approach, please start 
>>>>>> editing.
>>>>>> (no edits so far,
>>>>>> this is a wiki, free speech, last change wins, anything goes, like
>>>>>> wikipedia)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Es begab sich aber da Benjamin Nowack zur rechten Zeit 26.02.2007
>>>>>> 11:24 folgendes schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>> On 22.02.2007 19:55:52, Leo Sauermann wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>> I see two things to face, first:
>>>>>>>> Describing Information items as such, such as tools, websites, 
>>>>>>>> presentaitons, tutorials. This should be done using RSS 1.0, 
>>>>>>>> and in some cases when needed extended using DOAP, foaf, etc. 
>>>>>>>> This is pretty straightforward, please review and update this 
>>>>>>>> site until you agree:
>>>>>>>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/InfoGathering/DataVocabular 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> y
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>> Not sure about the RSS design decision, it pretty much restricts 
>>>>>>> the resource types to documents, so we can't really use it as an 
>>>>>>> "umbrella" spec. My 2 highly redundant cents:
>>>>>>> - I found DOAP to work fine for most things software, DCMI 
>>>>>>> provides a
>>>>>>> number of handy resource type URIs[1] which could be used to 
>>>>>>> augment
>>>>>>> doap:Version resources (e.g. dctype:Collection, dctype:Dataset,
>>>>>>> dctype:InteractiveResource, dctype:Service), or owl:Ontology for
>>>>>>> projects that produce vocabularies (e.g. the FOAF project)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>> That was partly already there,
>>>>>> please edit the wiki page so that it reflects your exact ideas, 
>>>>>> but I think the current version already is like you say here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>> - tags (skos:subject, or dc:subject) for more specific stuff 
>>>>>>> (personal
>>>>>>> preference: the more fine-grained skos options)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>> ok, one more for SKOS
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>> - Danny's review vocab[2] for ratings/reviews
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>> please add this to the wiki page!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>> - a combination of the two rdf/iCal specs[3][4] (with and without
>>>>>>> timezone-datatyped timestamps) for events
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>> they are rather buggy and not clear which one to use, but I would 
>>>>>> go for the simpler (not-timezone-as-datatype-one).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Es begab sich aber da Danny Ayers zur rechten Zeit 22.02.2007 
>>>>>> 20:25 folgendes schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>> Quick thoughts: I see the motivation re. reuse, but rather than 
>>>>>>> trying to use solely RSS 1.0 for the items, it might be better 
>>>>>>> to use more precise terms where they exist, as_well_as the RSS 
>>>>>>> terms, e.g.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://example.org/doc> a rss:item; a foaf:Document .
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>> I also thought about this, but if you require from all 
>>>>>> participants to do that, it sucks.
>>>>>> Why should anyone annotate two types if one is enough? This is 
>>>>>> the format we expect external data to be in, inference should add 
>>>>>> the additional triples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>> For the taxo stuff, SKOS sounds a very good idea generally, 
>>>>>>> though I wouldn't be surprised if there were existing vocabs 
>>>>>>> that could be used for things like "tutorial" etc.
>>>>>>> I'll cc Ian, he hangs around libraries...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might also be worth considering (perhaps redundantly again) 
>>>>>>> the Tag Ontology at http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>> SKOS covers this and more, so would rather use skos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Danny.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>>> DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann
>>>>>> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer
>>>>>> Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
>>>>>> Trippstadter Strasse 122
>>>>>> P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
>>>>>> D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
>>>>>> Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geschaeftsfuehrung:
>>>>>> Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter 
>>>>>> Olthoff Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
>>>>>> Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
>>>>>> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>> DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann
>>> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
>>> Trippstadter Strasse 122
>>> P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
>>> D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
>>> Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de
>>>
>>> Geschaeftsfuehrung:
>>> Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
>>> Dr. Walter Olthoff
>>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
>>> Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
>>> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>   
>>
>>
>
>


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Friday, 2 March 2007 16:40:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:52 UTC