Re: Linked Data

Ok, it's a bit embarrassing now, but I again forgot the link (last mail
today, promise - has been a loooooong working day and it's past midnight
now, here ;)

The link [2] should be:

http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/issues/detail?id=32

Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
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: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:03:03 +0100
> To: Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com>, Gannon Dick
> <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
> Cc: <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Linked Data
> Resent-From: <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:03:38 +0000
> 
> 
> Ups, sorry, forgot link [2] ...
> 
> Should read: "a dedicated property in voiD 2.0 called void:inDataset [2]."
> 
> Cheers,
>       Michael
> 
> [2] 
> -- 
> 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: Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com>
>> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:50:38 -0400
>> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Gannon Dick
>> <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
>> Cc: <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
>> Subject: RE: Linked Data
>> 
>> Given a linked data URI, how do I find the VoiD resource that describes
>> it?
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hausenblas
>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:28 PM
>> To: Gannon Dick
>> Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org
>> Subject: 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 23:09:32 UTC