- From: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:17:43 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <1e89d6a40911190617t6170fc69v117bc943c66fd1ca@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Nathan -- You may be interested in the following short paper about a system that 'puts it all together'. www.reengineeringllc.com/A_Wiki_for_Business_Rules_in_Open_Vocabulary_Executable_English.pdf The system is online at the same site, and shared use is free. Apologies if you have seen this before, and thanks for your comments, -- Adrian Adrian Walker Reengineering On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > Hi All, > > Many thanks so far for the invaluable input I've been getting from the > community; I may be about to commit the cardinal sin here, but I'm a bit > concerned and only saying this with the best intentions. > > Before I start, if I can be considered an early adopter then please do > disregard the rest of this mail. > > I'm finding the path to entry in to the linked open data world rather > difficult and confusing, and only for one specific reason - ontologies; > it /feels/ like there are some kind of ontology wars going on and I can > never get a definitive clear answer. > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but the primary focus for me is to use > ontologies that people will be using in SPARQL (or alternative language) > queries. Anything else appears to be a waste of time. > > Multiple properties in multiple languages that appear to describe the > same thing make no logical sense to me whatsoever, and questioning my > own programming capabilities here, I don't see how they will to a > machine either. > > To put it in real terms, all I need to do is describe the relations > between a URI and multiple other URIs, yet this is the blocker in my > current project? - and it's really nothing complex (or shouldn't be); > I've managed to get a grip on all the various concepts and formats, > software, tools, methods, get everything set up, start consuming lod and > correlating plain text entries up to URIs, yet still choosing which > properties / ontologies to use is the blocker :( > > Please do tell me if this is just me missing something simple, if I can > simply write up my own ontology and everybody else will be able to > consume the data without any input from me; or me informing the world of > the new ontology so they can consume and handle it, then great; but if > not then surely this is a problem? > > My concern is on two levels here; > > 1: that my own path to entry is being slowed and indeed blocked by > confusion over ontologies. > > 2: that many other people will find the same problems (or worse) and it > could potentially be a show stopper for something so important. > > > Just to clarify, I'm not dealing with big custom data sets here, I'm > coming at LOD from the "normal" developer angle, writing systems that > publish articles and such like; and whilst describing things like > titles, authors, publish dates etc is all nice and simple ontology wise; > I'm finding that describing what the content is about is virtually > impossible - tags and subjects just don't cut it & the level of > description of relations needs to be somewhat more fine-grained to be of > any use. > > Many Regards & do hope I've caused no offence; > > Nathan > >
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2009 14:18:12 UTC