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

Re: Geonames enters the Semantic Web

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:44:58 +0200
Message-Id: <6D6FB31B-0901-423E-95A5-FEF04FB9E4E5@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Marc <marc@geonames.org>
To: Bernard vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>

Bernard,

On 17 Oct 2006, at 16:41, Bernard vatant wrote:
> Some "machines"  can very well know the web service they call and  
> what to do with the results. There are not only random crawlers and  
> browsers. There are also integrated applications calling an  
> external data base / service, but knowing preety well how to call  
> it and what to do with the results. That is what is called Service  
> Oriented Architecture, no?

Isn't that just a Web API like the ones geonames.org already provides?

The difference to the SemWeb: You need a specific Google API client  
or Amazon API client or Geonames API client to access the Web APIs,  
while a generic SemWeb client can interface with and discover all  
linked data.

>>> Maybe some user would like that kind of description to feed a  
>>> data base, others would like only the direct children of type  
>>> A.ADM1 etc.
>>
>> Note that SPARQL provides a better and standardized solution to  
>> that kind of problem. AFAIK you already provide a database dump of  
>> the Geonames data; third parties could use this to set up a SPARQL  
>> server (e.g. using D2R Server [3]). Or, if your data is linked up  
>> properly, use a dynamic-dataset SPARQL engine (e.g. using the  
>> SemWebClient library [4]).
> Sure enough. but in fact all the point of the exercice (from my  
> viewpoint) was to figure to which extent a "classical" data base  
> (that is, not built on RDF) like geonames, with already a bunch of  
> web services, was able to also provide RDF data without installing  
> a proper RDF server. If afterwards someone (may geonames  
> themselves) want to set up all you say, all the best. But the  
> original objective was smooth, effortless, costless migration.

Sure, and that's exactly the point I was trying to make: Just get the  
data out there, in a way that it is discoverable by automated tools.  
Don't make things complicated by adding all these parameters; if  
there's a need for more flexibility down the road, then there are  
already ways how you *or* someone else can add it easily later on.

Richard



>
> Bernard
>>
>> Keep it up,
>> Richard
>>
>> [1] http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
>> [3] http://sites.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/d2r-server/
>> [4] http://sites.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/ng4j/semwebclient/
>>
>>
>>
>>> Note that such hypothetical URIs actually work right now, but the  
>>> added parameters are not really processed and they are equivalent  
>>> to (2).
>>>
>>> And I guess, like in other geonames Web services, (2) would yield  
>>> a description with default values for parameters used in (3) and  
>>> (4) and the like. In that case, the description of (1) yielded by  
>>> (2) through 303 redirects will be neither "complete", nor  
>>> "canonical", nor "authoritative" ... but just a "default"  
>>> description.
>>>
>>> Is this correct TAG-wise? This time I ask before ... :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Bernard vatant a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Hello all
>>>>
>>>> I'm very pleased to announce that, through a quick and efficient  
>>>> collaboration with Marc (in cc), the 6 million and growing  
>>>> geographical features in the data base of Geonames [1] are now  
>>>> described by a OWL ontology [2], and the RDF description of each  
>>>> instance, including names, type, of course geolocation elements,  
>>>> is now available through Geonames Webservice,  adding to an  
>>>> already impressive pack of  services [3].
>>>> The ontology is very simple, and leverage elements of the  
>>>> wgs84_pos vocabulary [4]. The feature types are described using  
>>>> a simple SKOS vocabulary, which has been embedded in the OWL  
>>>> ontology.
>>>>
>>>> If you add that, thanks to Google Maps API, the geonames  
>>>> features can be created and edited through a wiki-like interface  
>>>> [5], this as Web 2.0 as can be.
>>>>
>>>> Comments welcome, either here or in the Geonames forum [6]
>>>>
>>>> Bernard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.geonames.org
>>>> [2] http://www.geonames.org/ontology/
>>>> [3] http://www.geonames.org/export/
>>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/#vocabulary
>>>> [5] http://www.geonames.org/recent-changes/
>>>> [6] http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/156.page
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> *Bernard Vatant
>>> *Knowledge Engineering
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>> *Mondeca **
>>> *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
>>> Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>> Tel. +33 (0) 871 488 459 Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com  
>>> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
>>> Wikipedia:universimmedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
>>> User:Universimmedia>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/477 - Release Date:  
>> 16/10/2006
>>
>>
>
> -- 
>
> *Bernard Vatant
> *Knowledge Engineering
> ----------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca **
> *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
> Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tel. +33 (0) 871 488 459 Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com  
> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> Wikipedia:universimmedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
> User:Universimmedia>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 16:45:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:53 UTC