Re: "Microsoft Access" for RDF?

Paul,

does this look something like the interface you could use?

http://linkeddatahub.com/ldh?mode=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphity.org%2Fgc%23EditMode


Martynas
graphityhq.com

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well here is my user story.
>
> I am looking at a page that looks like this
>
> http://dbpedia.org/page/Albert_Einstein
>
> it drives me up the wall that the following facts are in there:
>
> :Albert_Einstein
>    dbpedia-owl:childOf :EinsteinFamily ;
>    dbpedia-owl:parentOf :EinsteinFamily .
>
> which is just awful in a whole lot of ways.  Case (1) is that I click an X
> next to those two triples and they are gone,  Case (2) is that I can create
> new records to fill in his Family tree and that will involve many other user
> stories such as (3) user creates literal field and so forth.
>
> Freebase and Wikidata have "good enough" user interfaces that revolve around
> entities,  see
>
> https://www.freebase.com/m/0jcx  (while you still can)
> http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q937
>
> but neither of those is RDF-centric.  It seems to me that an alternative
> semantics could be defined for RDF and OWL that work work like so:
>
> * we say :Albert_Einstein is a :Person
> * we then see some form with fields people can fill,  or alternately there
> is a dropdown list with predicates that have this as a known domain;  the
> range can also be used backwards so that we expect a langstring or integer
> or link to another :Person
>
> It's important that this be some tool that somebody who knows little about
> RDF can enter data and edit it with a little bit of task-oriented (as
> opposed to concept-oriented training.)
>
> The idea here is that the structures and vocabulary are constrained so that
> the structures are not complex;  both DBpedia and Freebase are so
> constrained.  You might want to say things like
>
>     [ a       sp:Ask ;
>                 rdfs:comment "must be at least 18 years old"^^xsd:string ;
>                 sp:where ([ sp:object sp:_age ;
>                             sp:predicate my:age ;
>                             sp:subject spin:_this
>                           ] [ a       sp:Filter ;
>                             sp:expression
>                                     [ sp:arg1 sp:_age ;
>                                       sp:arg2 18 ;
>                                       a sp:lt
>                                     ]
>                           ])
>     ]
>
>
> and that is cool,  but I have no idea how to make that simple for a muggle
> to use and I'm interested in these things that are similar in character to a
> relational database,  so I'd say that is out-of-scope for now.  I think this
> tool could probably edit RDFS schemas (treating them as instance data) but
> not be able to edit OWL schemas (if you need that use an OWL editor)
>
> Now if I was really trying to construct family trees I'd have to address
> cycles like that with some algorithms and heuristics because it probably
> take a long time to pluck them out by hand,  but some things you'll want to
> edit by hand and that process will be easier if you are working with a
> smaller data set,  which you can easily find.
>
> If you have decent type data,  as does Freebase,  it is not hard to pick out
> pieces of the WikiWorld,  such as "ski areas" or "navy ships" and the
> project of improving that kind of database with hand tools is much more
> tractable.
>
> For small projects you don't need access controls,  provenance and that kind
> of thing,  but if you were trying to run something like Freebase and
> Wikidata where you know what the algebra is the obvious thing to do is use
> RDF* and SPARQL*.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2015 23:07:28 UTC