W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Making sense of Linked Research

From: Thomas Passin <list1@tompassin.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:38:46 -0400
Message-ID: <53CE6966.1080906@tompassin.net>
To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
CC: SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 7/22/2014 7:40 AM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
> http://csarven.ca/sense-of-lsd-analysis

On reading the paper, I see you tried to do on a large scale much what I 
did on a small scale in 2003, namely, to get some mileage out of titles 
only.  I found a way to enhance the semantic content of these particular 
titles (browser bookmarks).  I found the approach to be of value in 
retrieval.  You might like to read my paper on this, "Browser bookmark 
management with Topic Maps", at

http://conferences.idealliance.org/extreme/html/2003/Passin01/EML2003Passin01.html

I also played with a very different title clustering method, and you 
might like reading that work, too:

"On-the-fly Clustering As A Novel RDF Query Mechanism" at

http://conferences.idealliance.org/extreme/html/2004/Passin01/EML2004Passin01.html

Tom Passin


> Okay, so, that's boring supposedly science-magic stuff.
>
> Go ahead and dereference the URI to RDF.
>
> Once again, IMHO, what's cooler is that it is a human and
> machine-friendly document. This is where Linked Research (aka: Linked
> Science, Semantic Publishing etc.) comes in:
>
> The document is in XHTML+RDFa and has screen and print stylesheets. The
> screen styles are what you would normally see in your Web browser. The
> print style is based on the LNCS template (you know, the one that some
> SW/LD research events force you to use when you submit your SW/LD
> bling-bling in PDF) - so, yes, you can output to PDF. Go ahead and copy
> the stylesheets and make it better:
> http://github.com/csarven/linked-research
>
> See how some of the following vocabularies/ontologies are put to use:
>
> * Semantic Publishing and Referencing: http://purl.org/spar
> * Provenance Ontology: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o
> * Open Provenance Model for Workflows: http://www.opmw.org/ontology
> * DC Terms: http://purl.org/dc/terms
>
> There is much room for improvement. No doubt.
>
> The SW/LD research community produces incredible work. Yet, what super
> sucks is that the community can not get its act together to eat its own
> dogfood. The community is at best stuck on *1-star*
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData . Even workshops that are
> about "Linked Science" or "Semantic Publishing" etc. are going in
> circles. Mind-boggling.
>
> The community is socially challenged to improve the state of SW
> research. It has a hard time learning from its own discoveries because
> it is stuck on desktop native document formats e.g., PDF, as opposed to
> taking it to the Web in its truest sense. It "hacks" around to attach or
> gather metadata about the research document instead of focusing on the
> valuable things inside those documents, which goes far beyond titles,
> abstracts, subjects, references.. The community simply can not
> intelligently mine previously published, *publicly funded* research.
> Reinvents. The community has to jump through hoops and fire to access a
> PDF document that resides in some publishers website. Whoever is in
> charge of the domain/path, they call the shots!
>
>
> Here is the challenge and a call to all SW/LD researchers. If you think
> your work is interesting enough, even slightly, willing to put your neck
> out, and want to make an honest contribution towards what we are all
> *essentially* working on, please give this a try:
>
> 1. Create and publish your goods: "Any resource of significance should
> be given a URI. " -
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#Universality2 . That goes
> beyond the "document" that you submit your work to conferences. It is
> from hypotheses, experiments, results, workflows, everything in those
> documents that deserve to be known and accessible. It is so that the
> next researcher can *honestly* take from where you left off or compare
> their work with yours. Don't worry, there is plenty of information that
> needs to be text-mined, but we can certainly improve the situation on
> what can be structured and eventually queried for. At least we have a
> way to look up those atomic resources or discover them.
>
> 2. Publish your work on your personal site, university, work, wherever.
> The point is that you should have control over it.
>
> 3. Link to other people's goods.
>
> 4. Have an open comment system policy. Get reviews, feedback, questions
> all in there that the community can engage in to improve the research
> further. It will feed itself.
>
>
> That's it. I'm done.
>
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 13:39:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:52 UTC