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

Re: Review of "Relevant Technologies"

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 18:10:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4DDE7B62.3080701@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
Hi,

By the way I wanted to point that some of the tools Karen have mentioned are in fact refered to in the side deliverable on Vocabularies and Datasets:
[
We hope it will prove an inspirational complement to more complete listing tools such as Semantic Web search engines, like Sindice or Falcons, or registries such as the Metadata Registry
]
(last sentence of http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset#Introduction:_Scope_and_Definitions)

[
the reader can view their content using generic ontology creation and visualization tools such as Protégé, the Manchester ontology browser, OWL Sight or the Live OWL Documentation Environment (see for example the DOAP ontology rendered in LODE).
]
(http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset#Relevant_LLD_Metadata_Element_Sets_-_anno_2011)

Would that address Karen's remark, if some of the tools she mentioned are explicitly refered somewhere in our deliverable, even though it's not in the part she was thinking of?

Cheers,

Antoine


> 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:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevant
> _Technologies&diff=4981&oldid=4944
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Tools&diff=498
> 2&oldid=4394
>
> 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?
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----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 16:07:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 May 2011 16:07:55 GMT