Re: Linked Data

Gannon,

Not sure I totally understand the issue you seem to raise, but if I
understand you correctly the solution is simple: voiD (vocabulary of
interlinked datasets) [1]-[4].

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://semanticweb.org/wiki/VoiD
[2] http://rdfs.org/ns/void-guide
[3] http://rdfs.org/ns/void
[4] http://sw-app.org/pub/ldow09-void.pdf

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
> To: <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Linked Data
> Resent-From: <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:06:04 +0000
> 
> CC wrote:
> On the demo call today we discussed a couple of technical issues that
> impact but are not specific to government.  These are:
> 
> 1)       That given a data URI, there is no standard way to
> programmatically access the metadata about the resource.
> 
> Sandro wrote: (can't find the exact quote)
> -The RDF model is the only one we (the W3C) have.-
> 
> I also looked at the DERI.ORG sitemap extensions.  The explanations were well
> worth the read.  The potential problem I see with extending sitemap is that it
> disconnects linked data from it's RDF and (Collection of) Human Readable HTML
> parts - 1 site=1 Database - and if you had more than one <owl:Thing> to share
> it could get very complicated.  Therein lies the rub.
> 
> For reasons stated here:
> http://www.rustprivacy.org/2010/meta/linked-data.pdf
> with an example here:
> http://www.rustprivacy.org/2010/meta/linked-data.xml
> or for the bold:
> http://www.rustprivacy.org/2010/meta/linked-data.xsl (on valid XHTML)
> 
> I think the complexity is in the nature of meta data and not in the sitemap
> mechanism.  However, I could really, really really use some feedback from the
> W3C and deri.org.
> 
> --Gannon 
> 
> 
>       
>

Received on Thursday, 18 March 2010 22:28:46 UTC