Re: linked open data and PDF

Wow, there's a blast from the past*.

--Gannon

* "past" = back when URL's looked like URI's and control freaks could keep their domain holdings and ontologies on the same ledger.  Not for a minute do I think this was a good thing, and in any case no fault of GRDDL. 
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 1/21/15, Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

 Subject: Re: linked open data and PDF
 To: "Norman Gray" <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
 Cc: "Paul Houle" <ontology2@gmail.com>, "Herbert Van de Sompel" <hvdsomp@gmail.com>, "jschneider@pobox.com" <jschneider@pobox.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
 Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2015, 8:52 PM
 
 On Wed, 2015-01-21 at
 17:16 +0000, Norman Gray wrote:
 
 > (also it's not even really about XMP;
 there are all sorts of ways of
 > 
 scraping metadata out of objects and turning it into
 something which
 >  an RDF parser can
 read, and from that point you can start being
 >  imaginative.  This is of course
 stupidly obvious to everyone on this
 > 
 list, but it's an aha! that many people haven't got
 yet).
 
 GRDDL, anyone? [1]
 
 I think the GRDDL spec was too
 narrowly scoped to XML resources. The
 concept is simple and ingenious, and applicable
 to any type of resource.
 Many years ago,
 inspired by the then-new GRDDL spec) I built a modest
 RDF gleaning framework for tracing software
 requirements through
 development and
 testing. It gleaned from requirements documents and
 functional specification (in MS Word format),
 design documents (in TeX),
 source code
 (c++), test results (in XML), and probably also plain
 text
 (csv) and MS Excel.
 
 Regards,
 --Paul
 
 [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-grddl-20070911/

Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 18:03:31 UTC