- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:57:45 +0200
- To: "Tudhope D S (AT)" <dstudhope@glam.ac.uk>
- CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org, Lourens van der Meij <lourens@few.vu.nl>
Hello, As you might have noticed that I've just announced a SKOS repository available via a web service [1], it won't come as a surprise that I support many of Doug's points below :-) Some of the motivations I can think of are in fact quite trivial: Guidance & expertise sharing: a service provides with well-identified functions, rather than let application designers wondering what to do in front of RDF data. In some cases this can be counter-productive, in some others it can help structuring practices and making application development faster. Designing a service may make one (or better, a community) think in terms of application/requirements, which can be hugely valueable. This feature becomes also especially useful when it comes to sharing functions that require specific expertise. This is I guess the case of the query expansion mechanisms Doug and Ceri propose, which capitalize on a lot of existing work. (and of course, technically, query expansion patterns in some cases can be really tedious to reproduce in SPARQL, and sometimes even out of reach). Control & performance: from a data provider perspective, it may not be wise to release a SPARQL endpoint--building a service around an RDF source is also a good means to disallow unoptimized SPARQL queries, or queries that even optimized would put a repository on its knees. The ones getting the complete descriptions of a vocabulary's concept, for instance. We had an additional motivation, which might be seen as related to both previous aspects: in principle, our service can allow access to data which is distributed over different services, and manage this based on concept scheme-related information. A kind of mixture between scalability-oriented data management and use of specific domain data, which might be difficult to reproduce with SPARQL and/or generic distributed RDF repositories. (but I prefer to stop here, as I'm really not an expert of that topic) Cheers, Antoine [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Apr/0022.html > Hi - following up on this and Al's subsequent email > > wrt other implementations, i know doug tudhope and ceri binding have > an implementation of the skos web service api with some extensions, > but i don't know what the release status is. > Ceri Binding developed a set of web services, based upon SKOS Core data > model (v1) for the purposes of the STAR project [3]. The services > currently provide term look up across the thesauri held in the system, > along with browsing and semantic concept expansion within a chosen > thesaurus. > > The service is based on a subset of the SWAD Europe SKOS API with > extensions for concept expansion. Details and the API at > http://hypermedia.research.glam.ac.uk/kos/terminology_services/ > (may need to copy/paste the url to avoid our email server) > and background references at [1,2], including a review of previous work > on KOS APIs and use patterns. Anyone interested is welcome to inspect > the API or download a client demonstrator of basic functionality. > > SKOS_WS is a SOAP web service written in C#, running on Microsoft .NET > framework. The current implementation is SOAP based but we believe that > a REST based http version would not a big step. We haven't made the > service code available to date as it is still under development for STAR > and a new Tag Recommnder project just starting. However, we are > committed to publishing the server software as open source by the end of > the STAR project and anyone interested in collaborative API development > is welcome to contact me regarding an interim snapshot version. The > current version uses the SemWeb RDF library. > > Within the project, we've also been discussing the relative pros/cons of > a specialist SKOS web service vs a general RDF query language (SPARQL) > and would be interested in any wider discussion. > > Different conditions may favour the one or the other. A SPARQL endpoint > lets you do anything supported by SPARQL and does not restrict to the > specific services exposed. However it may be found that some > functionality is not easy/possible in SPARQL. A service API could be > implemented on top of SPARQL or via another platform and does not have > to be a web service, although web services offer a platform neutral > capability (potentially available as an external, third party service). > > Al (Dan) mentioned issues as to whether any API functionality might be > hard to realise efficiently in SPARQL, eg text-based query or iterative > cost-based concept expansion. Other reasons for a specialised API (or > program library) could be if some developers, making use of SKOS, prefer > not to be constrained to SPARQL for any reason (eg security issues in > exposing the database, skillset issues or existing platform > constraints), or if the API functions correspond to common use cases > that can be provided at a higher level. > > Doug > > 1. Background on KOS services and user interface patterns - > Binding C., Tudhope D. 2004. KOS at your Service: Programmatic Access to > knowledge Organisation Systems. Journal of Digital Information, 4(4) > http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/110/109 > > 2. Concept based query expansion paper > Tudhope D., Binding C., Blocks D., Cunliffe D. 2006. Query expansion via > conceptual distance in thesaurus indexed collections. Journal of > Documentation, 62 (4), 509-533. Emerald. > http://hypermedia.research.glam.ac.uk/media/files/documents/2008-04-02/J > DOCfinal-Tudhope.doc > > 3. STAR - Semantic Technologies for Archaeological Resources > http://hypermedia.research.glam.ac.uk/kos/STAR/ > > > Douglas Tudhope > Professor, Faculty of Advanced Technology > University of Glamorgan > Pontypridd CF37 1DL > Wales, UK > Tel +44 (0) 1443-483609 > Fax +44 (0) 1443-482715 > Editor : The New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alistair Miles > Sent: 14 April 2009 12:47 > To: Johan De Smedt > Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org; public-swd-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: SKOS API and web-service > > hi johan > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 08:42:32AM +0200, Johan De Smedt wrote: >> Dear, >> >> Following the new CR for SKOS, >> is there an update planned for >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/skosapi.html ? > > no, this wasn't in scope for the swdwg. if folks would like to use > this list to discuss a community-led update to the skos web service > api that would be great. > > i know doug tudhope and ceri binding at glamorgan have worked on this > fairly recently, they use concept expansion methods to support > information retrieval. > > adding to what dan said, the skos ws api was written before there was > sparql. it would be nice to look again at the skos ws api, in light of > sparql, and to ask which methods really add something over sparql, > either in terms of convenience or functionality. e.g. you can't do > cost-based expansions with sparql, at least not easily. you also can't > do very efficient text-based queries. some stuff you can do tho, > e.g. see [1]. > > cheers, > > alistair > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Mar/0017.html > >> Thanks for information or advice. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Johan De Smedt >> ================= >> johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com >> mobile: +32 477 475 934 >> ================= >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 20:58:25 UTC