Re: Resolving vocabulary URIs?

Nathan,

My idea of "follow your nose" or I guess "follow the trail" ( as you
described ) could be found by browsing around dbpedia. For example see:
http://dbpedia.org/page/Berlin . To me, the linked open data cloud is just
about browsing from one piece of linked data to another. It is not about
semantics. True, it does allow you to keep things up to date, and keep
track of the naming of things across applications. I don't know if it
helps, but I put together a presentation about linked data and webpayments.
Linked data and JSON-LD was a necessary introduction.

-Brent


-Brent Shambaugh

Website: bshambaugh.org

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Nathan Ridley <axefrog@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am new to the list, so my apologies if this has been covered earlier, or
> elsewhere. I couldn't find an answer, in any case.
>
> The context of a document references the URI of one or more vocabularies.
> My understanding is that this whole idea of linked data allows the web to
> be machine readable by smart clients, however I'm generally seeing that the
> referenced vocabulary URIs (schema.org in particular) just go to the
> site's home page, which is not machine readable in any standardized way.
> So, given that most types ultimately drill down to basic data types
> (string, date, integer, etc.) I have assumed that I would be able to look
> at a JSON-LD document and "follow the trail" back to machine-readable
> sources that would give me enough standardized information that I can then
> generate an appropriate representation, without technically having had to
> know anything about that vocabulary in advance. Is this the idea, but which
> has yet to be realised? I'm trying to build a small sample reference client
> using JSON-LD and Hydra, and the lack of machine-readability in the
> response from a vocabulary URI is making me think I have to decide what
> vocabularies I want to support and maintain a copy of each on my own
> server, such that the client can look there instead for the exact
> definitions of each type.
>
> Any guidance on this would be appreciated.
>
> thanks,
> Nathan Ridley
>
> --
> *Google*: axefrog@gmail.com
> *Skype*: axefrog
> *Twitter*: @NathanRidley
> *Website*: http://axefrog.com / http://nathanridley.com
> *Phone: *+61 (0) 475 072789
>