W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > May 2011

RE: Review of "Relevant Technologies"

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 11:56:12 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590C948D37@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
I updated
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies to
try to account for Karen's review comments. I added the tools she
mentioned to the http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Tools, but my
impression is that this artifact won't be referred to anywhere in the
report. Here is a diff of the before and after for both pages:


I'm not sure how to characterize the apparent lack of tools for creating
instance data. I can create instances in Wikipedia and eventually they
show up in DBpedia. D2RQ has support for SPARQL/Update
<http://d2rqupdate.cs.technion.ac.il/>. AtomPub can be used to support
CRUD operations on a Linked Dataset. Some CMS systems support RDFa. The
section discusses Web Application Frameworks, which typically support
CRUD operations through HTML user interfaces.  I don't think these are
what Karen is looking for, though. I suspect the desire is for a
framework that can self-configure from a DCAP-style application profile,
but I'm a little wary of calling this "relevant" because nothing like it
currently exists. Is there a better way to think about this so it could
be accounted for in this section?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 8:58 PM
> To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Review of "Relevant Technologies"
> I was given the action of doing a quick review of the page:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies
> I really like the style of this page and think it makes it much less
> intimidating that it could otherwise be, since the language is very
> "story-like." It reads well.
> One needs to have a fairly good amount of tech knowledge to understand
> what some of it means, which may be fine if that's the audience we
> anticipate. For example, it refers to technologies like
> "Model-View-Controller" and "rewrite engines", things that aren't in
> my own vocabulary but may be second nature to other audiences. If we
> think this page also needs to speak to non-techie audiences, then it
> may need some more introductory material -- another sentence or two on
> the opening paragraph might be enough.
> If I'm not mistaken, the technologies here are all aimed at IT and
> systems developers. I'd like to suggest that we include at least one
> other group: metadata modelers and developers. I've included some
> ideas below for technology that might be included but I don't know
> enough to know if what I have there is suitably representative.
> It may be useful to say upfront that there isn't at the moment
> technology for metadata instance creators, at least none that would be
> comparable to what the library cataloging community uses today. That's
> a common question and one that we should address.
> **** some possible other technologies ****
> Technology for Metadata Developers
> Open Metadata Registry - a web interface for the creation of SKOS, RDF
> and OWL data.
> http://metadataregistry.org
> Swoogle - a search engine to help find vocabulary terms to re-use
> http://swoogle.umbc.edu/
> Tones Ontology Browser - another gathering of ontologies to browse and
> search
> http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/repository/browser
> Snoggle - software to help you map relationships
> http://snoggle.semwebcentral.org/
> OWL ontology browser, to display ontologies nicely in HTML
> http://code.google.com/p/ontology-browser/
> ... I'm sure there are others ....
> kc
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2011 15:57:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:57 UTC