W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2016

Re: Feedback

From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 01:17:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE35Vmxq-UaP5qcvdSd36nePEOAcRjf9pYvqHwogyYbTN1Ae=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
Cc: pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>
Sebastian,

please name actual datasources (Wikidata, UniProt, whatever),
vocabularies/ontologies (schema.org, Data Cube, etc.), data formats
(XML, CSV) that you want to use, and most importantly -- for what
specific purpose?

Right now your document is so abstract it is incomprehensible and not
implementable.

Martynas

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all, in response to Timothy's request I'll try to describe real world
> problems / use cases I'm trying to solve: As the project I'd like to be
> realized in this endeavor is a general purpose (knowledge enabled) database
> back end with special features, use cases and problems may be the same of
> the ones solved by traditional databases but with semantic back end and
> special features provided benefits. So, it will not do much by itself but to
> provide the means of higher application / presentation layers taking
> advantage of such approaches.
>
> As the document I'm posting is kind of illegible stuff, I believe sharing
> its link for comments will be of great help for me when dumping my thoughts
> on the keyboard given useful advice is provided for making things clearer.
> Here is the Google Docs link (anyone can comment):
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mJbhTJSi907vrXfMtKly5biAMnoZJ5T-KziaIMIELuM/edit?usp=drive_web
>
> Please be patient. I have this bunch of ideas, all low level, protocol like
> (nothing like an 'application'), for back end and infrastructure of concrete
> semantic applications. Maybe not even a little part of all the document is
> worth reading material or is not well written. What I'd like is finally get
> to communicate my concepts to see if it is worth coding a 'proof of concept'
> of this 'semantic services database'. The reason I'm so insistent in having
> this feedback and potential consumers before I do some code is that I've
> made so many attempts before by myself and I didn't get to nothing alone.
>
> Best Regards,
> Sebastián.
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2016 7:58 PM, "Sebastian Samaruga" <ssamarug@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Trying to follow your advice I've added a Scope section at the beginning
>> of the document. The reason why I've found so difficult to describe this
>> 'application' is that it is not an application but it is more like a kind of
>> (knowledge) backend database where (augmented) RDF and metamodels are my
>> 'relational' model. I don't know if exists some kind of 'relational algebra'
>> for RDF so I started writing my own. Please tell me if I'm missing something
>> important.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sebastián.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2016 1:05 AM, "Juan Sequeda" <juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sebastian,
>>
>> Writing advice I got early on:
>>
>> - First write an abstract. If you can't summarize in a few sentences what
>> you are doing, then it is going to be very hard for other to understand
>> - From the abstract, the following should be apparent
>> 1) What is the problem
>> 2) Why is it important (i.e. motivation)
>> 3) What is your contribution (what is unique/novel)
>>
>> Your introduction should dive into a bit more detail on this.
>>
>> You should be answer each of these questions in a succinct and crisp
>> sentence.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
>> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
>> www.juansequeda.com
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all, its me again. I'm looking for feedback in this analysis phase of
>>> a project I'd like to start building soon. The reason I post this draft
>>> document again is that I've made some changes. I'd like to have some
>>> orientation in the right directions I should take. I hope not to be boring
>>> someone but 'cos what I'd like is to build kind of augmented ontologies and
>>> metamodels, seems like no one is willing to share this approach with me.
>>>
>>> Sorry if the document is a little rough written. I've wrote it all on a
>>> phone...
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Sebastián.
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2016 00:17:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 November 2016 00:18:01 UTC