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

Re: linked data mashups

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:17:06 -0500
Message-ID: <492A9B42.7010100@openlinksw.com>
To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
CC: public-lod@w3.org

Peter Ansell wrote:
> 2008/11/24 Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com 
> <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>>
>     Peter Ansell wrote:
>         2008/11/23 Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com
>         <mailto:juanfederico@gmail.com> <mailto:juanfederico@gmail.com
>         <mailto:juanfederico@gmail.com>>>
>            Hi Giovanni and all
>            On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Giovanni Tummarello
>            <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org
>         <mailto:giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
>            <mailto:giovanni.tummarello@deri.org
>         <mailto:giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>>> wrote:
>                > I guess that is THE question now: What can we do this
>         year
>                that we
>                > couldn't do last year?
>                > ( thanks to the massive amount of available LOD ).
>                Two days ago the discussion touched this interesting
>         point. I
>                do not
>                know how to answer this question.
>                Ideas?
>            We need to start consuming linked data and making reall mashup
>            applications powered by linked data. A couple of days I just
>            mentioned the link for SQUIN: http://squin.sourceforge.net/
>            The idea of SQUIN came out of ISWC08 with Olaf Hartig. The
>            objective is to make LOD accesible easily to web2.0 app
>            developers. We envision adding an "S" compoment to the LAMP
>         stack.
>            This will allow people to easily query LOD from their own
>         server.
>            We should have a demo ready in the next couple of weeks.
>            We believe that this is something needed to actually start
>         using
>            LOD and making it accesible to everybody.
>         How does SQIUN differ to a typical HTTP SPARQL endpoint? So
>         far it accepts a "query" parameter as a SPARQL select
>         statement and executes the parameter on (some configured?)
>         SPARQL endpoints from looking at the single sourcefile I could
>         find [1]. Having said that, I have been holding off getting my
>         bio2rdf server to actually process rdf but it doesn't look so
>         hard now. (The bio2rdf server is actually more generic than
>         just biology or even bio2rdf but it is still named that in
>         response to its origins. And in contrast to SQUIN it focuses
>         on CONSTRUCT queries rather than SELECT)
>         On the subject of mashups I have been thinking in the last few
>         days of combining the bio2rdf server with the pipes.deri.org
>         <http://pipes.deri.org> <http://pipes.deri.org> interface for
>         mashups, as some fairly sophisticated mashups can be done on
>         pipes.deri.org <http://pipes.deri.org>
>         <http://pipes.deri.org>, but a lot of the generic queries seem
>         to be better handled at the client level where people can
>         control with configurations what endpoints are used and have
>         backups if a particular endpoint fails.
>         Cheers,
>         Peter
>         [1] http://tinyurl.com/6cvdl8
>     Peter,
>     Has anything happened re. cross-linking the data across
>     bio2rdf.org <http://bio2rdf.org> and dbpedia.org <http://dbpedia.org>?
> I have been waiting for information about what progress has been made 
> with the community based infobox extraction framework. Then the 
> relevant predicates in the protein/gene/chemical infoboxes can be used 
> pretty easily for linkages.
So I am assuming this hasn't happened, based on your response?
>     Sane cross-linking is vital to Linked Data Web oriented Meshups.
>     Note, there is a distinct difference between a Mashup and a Meshup
>     in my world view. Mashups are nice looking opaque Web pages that
>     have code behind them while Meshups are transparent Web pages with
>     Linked Data behind them (i.e. the data object URIs are accessible
>     to machines). A Meshup style page is really the Linked Data Web's
>     equivalent of a traditional DBMS View.
> I do understand the difference, but I tend to use the term mashup for 
> any combining of the data sources independent of the presentation. Its 
> hard enough defining a mashup when people ask for a definition without 
> going for another similar term from my experience.
Labels are very secondary in how I tend to look at things. In due course 
the difference between "Mashing" and "Meshing" will be self evident, 
especially if we get all the major Linked Data hubs connected properly.

> Cheers,
> Peter



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 12:17:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:43 UTC