W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2008

Re: RDF UI Vocab for the Linked Data era; is Fresnel a good choice?

From: alan gebert <alan.gebert@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 19:17:22 -0300
Message-ID: <c4cccf6a0801051417v7dd90ff8p5ba23af720995697@mail.gmail.com>
To: semantic-web@w3.org

Expanding on the latter post,

Some practical Linked Data UI use cases that are not currently solved
by fresnel ( AFAIK ):


1. Cardinality: ( might be partly solved by an ontology aware UI engine )
"If a foaf:Person has more than one value for the foaf:name property,
display only one of them."

2. Trust / Conflict Resolution / Provenance
"Always prefer values coming from the same domain of the subjects IRI,
or from http://dbpedia.org/* )

One might argue that this is beyond the scope of a UI engine... But it
is definitely within the scope of a browser, a UI Agent that collects,
selects and presents data to a human end user.

Hmm, any pointers?
Is work on this area going on somewhere so I can participate?

Thanks,
Al




On Jan 5, 2008 6:53 PM, alan gebert <alan.gebert@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been going over the idea of implementing Fresnel for a
> particular mobile technology but, before taking the leap, I need to
> ask big brother the golden question.
>
> Given that some water has run under the bridge, is Fresnel still a good choice?
> On the LOD world... What is the state of the art on RDF UI?
>
>
> PD: Off the top of my head, one technical observation regarding fresnel:
>
> 1. Inline FSL/SPARQL expressions use qnames ( foaf:name ) instead of
> extended IRIs. I assume that the prefix scope is the document that
> contains them, but it implies that, to expand them correctly, I need
> to do one of the following:
> - Make the parser aware of these expressions ( ex: XSD datatype
> fresnel:fslSelector ) so it can correctly expand the qnames at parse
> time
> - Store the required provenance info and the prefix set so the Fresnel
> engine can make the expansion later
>
> The latter seems easier to do... but still feels a bit "odd" and I can
> see myself running into some trouble. I know some parts of my current
> framework won't respect that completely ( smushing, inference, remote
> parsing... a la Triplr ) as they treat the literal as an obscure rdf
> term and may replace "foaf" for "p1" without asking anyone for
> permission.
>
> OTOH, including the prefix list everywhere is not a clean solution either....
> I propose defining a new property that travels along with the group: (
> fresnel:prefixes "foaf:<...>, foo:<..>" ).
>
>
> Thanks,
> Al
>
Received on Saturday, 5 January 2008 22:17:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:20 GMT