W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2006

RE: ANN: D2R Server publishing the DBLP Bibliography as Linked Data (Semantic Web grows 10%)

From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:15:22 +0100
To: <danbri@danbri.org>, "'Damian Steer'" <pldms@mac.com>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>, <timbl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000201c70561$2afcddd0$6c7ba8c0@hans>

Hi Dan,

You wrote:
This situation to my mind should encourage us to find better ways of
characteristing RDF documents, datasets, databases.... and the various ways
they can be subsetted into useful chunks. Perhaps some notion of RDF
"document types" couched in terms of template instances, or the SPARQL
queries that the doctypes might satisfy.

Although I know that you have an other type of document in mind, it might
interest you to see what we work on [1].

Regards,
Hans

[1]
http://www.infowebml.ws/description/ontology-for-document-types/ontology-for
-dts.htm 

-----Original Message-----
From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Dan Brickley
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 19:46
To: Damian Steer
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org; timbl@w3.org
Subject: Re: ANN: D2R Server publishing the DBLP Bibliography as Linked Data
(Semantic Web grows 10%)


Damian Steer wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5 Nov 2006, at 16:51, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> 
>> We discussed it non #swig before and after
>>  http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2006-11-04#T21-59-35
>>
>> I liked your proposal to change the seeAlso to moreData, now 
>> implemented -- thanks you!
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the point of moreData. It's supposed to be 
> weaker than the (weak already) seeAlso, to the point where it's a 
> relation which doesn't relate subject to object? ("Further information 
> that may or may not be related to the subject resource")

Yep, I think that summarises my discomfort too. RDFCore had the choice to
make seeAlso more specific, but we went with the loose version. There is no
restriction on syntax, dataset size, availability (ACLs etc). Or even that
the referenced data encodes RDF statements about the same thing (let alone
that it use the same URI for it).

If dataset size is an issue, ... that can be probed by HTTP HEAD.

It seems the motivation is a mix of 2 concerns: file size and relevance.

eg. If I know you live in Bristol (...and I have my spies) then downloading
a 3k graph giving some info on Bristol is a useful little dataset to "see
Also" if I'm doing some RDF-based stalking of you. But downloading
everything-ever-said-about-bristol.rdf too. Similarly, ... 
if I know you're working at University of Bristol, ... I might be interested
to know what papers you have co-authored with your colleagues. Now if there
is a damiansteer-bibiography.rdf file, that seems a great thing to "seeAlso"
to. If there is a ilrtstaff-bibliography.rdf file, ... perhaps I'd seeAlso
that as well (testing the robustness of software if it turns out to be
rather large).
But an everything-ever-written-by-people-at-bristoluni.rdf or a
complete-dump-of-the-compsci-literature.rdf document would have a less
attractive bulk-vs-relevance profile.

And of course relevance and utility is pretty task-specific, as well as
qualified by the resources available. If I'm doing something on a mobile
phone over expensive, gappy and unreliable networking, the cost of
de-referencing some seeAlso'd data might be too high.

This situation to my mind should encourage us to find better ways of
characteristing RDF documents, datasets, databases.... and the various ways
they can be subsetted into useful chunks. Perhaps some notion of RDF
"document types" couched in terms of template instances, or the SPARQL
queries that the doctypes might satisfy.

Overloading or replacing seeAlso strikes me as not likely to come close to
what we need here. In particular, as you say, if the referenced document
isn't very pertinent, ... using a typed relation to describe it seems
inelegant and un-necessarily constraining.

cheers,

Dan

> If you want to mention a resource why not just mention it (:foo a 
> rdfs:Resource)? Or :foo a :InterestingPlaceToLook?



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.1/527 - Release Date: 09-Nov-06
18:00
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.1/527 - Release Date: 09-Nov-06
18:00
 
Received on Saturday, 11 November 2006 07:15:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:12 GMT