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

Re: [Information Gathering] next steps: syndication, good weblocation

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:27:47 -0400
Message-ID: <460ED253.5020008@openlinksw.com>
CC: public-sweo-ig@w3.org

Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> Kingsley Idehen wrote on 03/31/2007 11:45:01 AM:
>
>   
>> Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>     
>>> Kingsley Idehen wrote on 03/30/2007 09:51:21 AM:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Leo Sauermann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi Information Gatherers,
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought about how to proceed with the user-interface for 
>>>>>           
> visualizing 
>   
>>>       
>>>>> the integrated data, looking at the discussing.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems the effort to do the syndication is manageable, as Kingsley 
>>>>>           
>
>   
>>>>> has proven by implementing the aggregation already.
>>>>> We should focus on the format that we want people to make their data 
>>>>>           
>
>   
>>>>> sources available in. Once the data format is settled, and Kingsleys 
>>>>>           
>
>   
>>>>> integration works, we setup a website on some W3C URL related to 
>>>>>           
> SWEO 
>   
>>>>> to make it accessible.
>>>>> And we can then encourage independent 3rd parties to aggregate the 
>>>>> data and provide the interface
>>>>>
>>>>> I asked Susie for her thoughts about this and she proposes exactly 
>>>>> this, stick to information gathering.
>>>>>
>>>>> Making a web interface that is user-friendly (especially newbie 
>>>>> friendly) and is managed by W3C is tricky, because W3C is a 
>>>>>           
> technology 
>   
>>>       
>>>>> standardization body and not an education body. We all agree that 
>>>>>           
> the 
>   
>>>>> data has to be under an open license and that anyone can visualize 
>>>>>           
> it.
>   
>>>>> So we will focus our efforts on syndication of data and providing a 
>>>>> stable SPARQL endpoint for the data + download facilities (and an 
>>>>>           
> RSS 
>   
>>>>> feed).
>>>>> To decide on this, I would propose now to drop the portal ideas for 
>>>>> now. Anybody who wants can make a portal, if members of SWEO want to 
>>>>>           
>
>   
>>>>> make one, thats a new task force. (to concentrate our energy)
>>>>>
>>>>> (please give feedback)
>>>>>
>>>>> best
>>>>> Leo
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>> I'm afraid that I have to strongly disagree with this. While 
>>>       
> information 
>   
>>> gathering is an important prerequisite, I don't think that it, on its 
>>>       
> own, 
>   
>>> really contributes to education or to outreach about the Semantic Web. 
>>>       
>
>   
>>> With data streams of relevant resources, I'm only a bit closer to 
>>>       
> being 
>   
>>> able to start to educate my non-SW-believing friends, family, and 
>>> coworkers than I was previously. 
>>>
>>> As I guess I've said in the past, for me the real value comes when we 
>>>       
> have 
>   
>>> an interface that can be sliced and diced for various audiences, and 
>>>       
> that 
>   
>>> highlights the most accessible, accurate, and effective resources that 
>>>       
> the 
>   
>>> SW community has to offer.
>>>
>>> I must apologize for the fact that I haven't found the time and energy 
>>>       
> to 
>   
>>> speak up before now (especially after volunteering for the IG task), 
>>>       
> but I 
>   
>>> do think it would be a big mistake for SWEO not to proceed further 
>>>       
> along 
>   
>>> this path. I think that the aggregated data sources is a great first 
>>>       
> step, 
>   
>>> but without augmenting it with some way to identify the best-of-breed 
>>> resources and to attach facets to various resources (what type of 
>>> resource, what level of fmailiarity is assumed, what type of audience, 
>>>       
> is 
>   
>>> the resource slanted to a particular industry) and then without 
>>>       
> exposing 
>   
>>> this in a user-friendly fashion, I think we've actually accomplished 
>>>       
> very 
>   
>>> little.
>>>
>>> I will try my best to put my time where my words are, and--if anyone 
>>>       
> else 
>   
>>> agrees with me on this, of course--I'll be happy to spearhead an 
>>>       
> effort to 
>   
>>> make use of this data in the way that I see fit. While a single 
>>>       
> individual 
>   
>>> can produce the type of user-interface I'm picturing (and even 
>>>       
> generate 
>   
>>> the classification data), the ranking bit of my vision requires the 
>>> agreement and participation of a larger group of us. So if the group 
>>>       
> feels 
>   
>>> that our time is best spent elsewhere, I've spoken my piece and will 
>>>       
> let 
>   
>>> it rest. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Also remember that Exhibit and other Rich Internet Applications 
>>>>         
> oriented 
>   
>>>       
>>>> tools also benefit from the fact that most SPARQL Endpoints support 
>>>>         
> JSON 
>   
>>>       
>>>> serialization of results.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Big thumbs-up to this point. SPARQL + exhibit is exactly the type of 
>>> approach I'm picturing to building an interface for this data. (Though 
>>>       
>
>   
>>> I've been playing with exhibit recently, and it may not be exactly 
>>>       
> what 
>   
>>> we're looking for. It's very close, though.)
>>>
>>>       
>> Lee,
>>
>> I don't think Leo is as far apart from your view as the commentary my 
>>     
> imply.
>   
>> As you know, there are a plethora of routes to building intuitive 
>> front-ends to RDF once there is you have SPARQL Endpoints. Personally, I 
>>     
>
>   
>> would suggest (the position I've always held) that we all build 
>> front-ends to the SWEO aggregated RDF Data Sources. Ultimately, the same 
>>     
>
>   
>> should also apply to the actual server collections, we should have RDF 
>> server mirrors from the likes of IBM and Oracle along the same lines as 
>> what OpenLink is offering (via the Virtuoso base RDF store). We have to 
>> practice what we preach at every turn, loose federation of RDF Data is 
>> an essential part of this bigger picture :-)
>>
>> Once we have the SPARQL Endpoint live, please proceed in the manner 
>> you've suggested re. Exhibit. It would also be nice to see a Boca based 
>> host of the RDF data also.
>>
>> To conclude, I violently agree!
>>     
>
> Hi Kingsley,
>
> While I'm glad that you think you violently agree with me, your above 
> comments don't reflect my opinions at all... so let me try again.
>
> >From an _education and outreach_ point of view:
>
> I don't care *at* *all* where the data is hosted. I don't care at all who 
> owns the domains, whose software runs the store, whose SPARQL endpoints 
> are used, or whether the data is completely decentralized and federated or 
> whether its aggregated into a single store. To me, these are details, the 
> results of which have almost no effect on the success of an education 
> effort around Semantic Web information resources.
>
> I also don't care whether there are 4 or 5 or 10 or 1 user interfaces that 
> consume the data; instead, I care that there is *one* *good* and 
> accessible way of getting at the data, that doesn't require the consumer 
> to know anything at all about the Semantic Web--or to have any assumed 
> level of technical competence--to benefit from.
>
> What I care about and think is important for our education and outreach 
> efforts is for us to do the work to identify what the cream of the crop 
> SemWeb information resources are, and then organize them based on which 
> ones are most useful for which types of people. To do this, I believe that 
> we need to augment the existing information resources with:
>
> a/ some way to identify the best (this could be digg.com-style ratings, 
> google-style rankings (don't think we need that level of complexity), or 
> even just simple "best of breed" flags)
>   
Lee,

What stops any of the above being produce via an (X)HTML page with 
dynamic binding to the relevant sources? With the relevant flags? What 
stops the flagging or any other categorization from being part of the 
data source? We do have Review Ontologies for instance with slots that 
enable us produce review pages as demonstrated by: http://revyu.com .

> b/ appropriate predicates and editorial work to associate information 
> resources with the appropriate audience that each is aimed at (both on a 
> technical capability level and on a industry/domain level)
>
>   
If we can associate RDF data with preferred display controls (as 
demonstrated by Tabulator and our RDF Browser), then why can't we do 
exactly the same thing as part of the production of a portal where the 
filtering is based on the target audience where the data for filtering 
is in the source data?

> I hope this clears up what I've been trying to say.
>
>   
It clears up how I think we should get there.

As to whether we agree? Unfortunately I have no idea :-)


Kingsley

> Lee
>
>
>   
>> Kingsley
>>
>>     
>>> Lee
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley Idehen         Weblog: 
>>>>         
> http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>   
>>>> President & CEO 
>>>> OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>
>>>       
>> -- 
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen         Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> President & CEO 
>> OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2007 21:27:50 UTC

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