Re: "Microsoft Access" for RDF?

On 2/23/15 4:34 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> On 21 February 2015 at 20:38, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de> wrote:
>
>> I admit that what you sketch here is better than what I have sketched with
>> named graphs. But it seems to require a very sophisticated editor or a
>> very sophisticated user.
> Agreed that the editor needs to be more clever than three text fields
> with auto-complete. If a non-RDF user is to be making RDF, at a
> triple-level, then the editor must be guiding the user towards the
> basic Linked Data principles rather than be a glorified vim. :)
>
>
>> I was talking about an editor where the user can
>> add triples with arbitrary properties.
> .. and arbitrary properties/classes should include ones the user make
> up on the spot and relate it to existing properties/classes.
>
> Kingsley was talking about the sentences analogy, and I think we
> should keep this in mind. While you shouldn't normally write a whole
> book using your own terminology, it's very common to introduce at
> least SOME terminology that you specify or clarify for the scope of
> the text (e.g. the document, graph, dataset).
>
> It could be something as in a triple (a sentence), show something as
> simple as a little [+] button next to the property or class to
> specialize it and use this instead in that triple. (making it
> available for other triples)
>
> Perhaps Kingsley's approach have some mechanism for specializing or
> introducing new properties?

It doesn't have that right now, but it will have such functionality in 
due course. This feature may or may not make the initial public release.

At the current time, I use nanotation [1][2] as my mechanism to for 
achieving this goal. Ultimately, an RDF Editor should simply be an 
alternative to nantation that addresses the needs of those that don't 
want type RDF statements by hand, in any notation. Yes, they don't want 
to work with raw editors like: vi, vim, textmate, sublime etc..

Links:

[1] http://kidehen.blogspot.com/2014/07/nanotation.html  -- I can create 
RDF statements that define the nature of things and/or the things themselves

[2] http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/c/8FWGFY -- results of nanotation in 
a tweet that include the definition of 
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/shouldBeOfInterestTo#this>

[3] 
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/fct/rdfdesc/usage.vsp?g=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fhashtag%2FshouldBeOfInterestTo%23this 
-- named graphs (documents) that contain the RDF statements used to 
define this particular relation  [basically, this was performed using a 
series of tweets] .

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this