W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2008

RE: Southampton Pub data as linked open data

From: John Goodwin <John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:52:05 +0100
Message-ID: <6788A63BA7EC0543BDC998EA0C758568888F37@EMAIL.ordsvy.gov.uk>
To: "Chris Wallace" <Chris.Wallace@uwe.ac.uk>, <public-lod@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>

Chris Wallace wrote:  

Thanks for the feedback Chris...

> 	Thanks John for this resource - It inspires me to help my
students to do a similar data collection > exercise in Bristol!

Something tells me that students won't need too much encouragement in
collecting the data :)

>	1) The resource URI eg.


>	is not humanly readable. Is this considered to be a problem?
For example DBPedia would be I think >be less valuable with
system-generated resource ids, even though natural resource ids require
a         >mechanism for disambiguation.  

I think most tools use the rdfs:label to show a more humanly readable

>	2) The pub name has been re-formatting to catalogue order, but
pub names are proper nouns and I'd >be laughed at if I asked the way to
"Alexandra, The".  Perhaps both forms could be included with a
>different tag for the catalog format if it is not computable from the
natural name.

Yes fair point. They were left this way mainly because of my own

>	4) I feel uncomfortable with the non-uniform representation of
the address - partly with domain >specific-tags pub:street and
pub:postcode, partly with a company-specific (and non-humanly
decipherable) >URI.  I know that this is a can of worms e.g.
http://xml.coverpages.org/namesAndAddresses.html#eccma and >I can't find
a suitable address vocabulary but this mixture doesn't look very

This was a problem. I actually looked around for a suitable address
ontology, but couldn't find one. Most ontologies for address I found
were for people rather than places. If this was a work project I
probably would have taken more care over the address, but as it was an
experiment on my own time I couldn't really be bothered :/ Sorry!

>	5) pub:dateSurveyed:  isn't this  just the date at which the
description was authored (if not when >it was entered into this format)
i.e. dc:date 

To be honest I can't remember what the date was - I took it from my
friends website as they collected the data. Being tea total I didn't aid
in the data collection exercise :)

> 	6) Generally , these seem such general properties of any place
that  I'm surprised that any local >vocabulary is needed at all, given
that no data is actually domain specific (like a list of beers >served).

Agreed really. If anyone does find any useful address ontologies I may
well change the RDF. 	 

>	This case study seems a great example of the issues in
vocabulary and resource reuse. It would be >interesting to compare the
different solutions which different analysts would use to represent this
data.  >Perhaps something like it would be a good exercise for the
Oxford VoCamp?

Yes. Sadly I can't make that as I'll be elsewhere.



This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505

Received on Monday, 28 July 2008 12:52:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:40 UTC