Re: Why we work on RSP

Hi Haroon,

I would like to give a try answering your questions:

1. RDF is good at interoperability. Consider the use case of stream data
integration. There can be two different situations:
a. When your data and the others have already been described using a
shared, common ontology (e.g., Semantic Sensor Networks ontology [1]), you
basically need minimal/no integration effort.
b. When your data is in RDF but is described in different ontologies: you
can use some off-the-shelf stream integration techniques like from [2],
which uses the R2RML standard as a mapping language.

2. RDF is good at reasoning. On top of RDF, there is OWL, which is an
ontology language for additional inference over your stream data. TrOWL is
an example of an OWL reasoner for stream services [3].

3. RDF is good for the Web. RDF by design is a data model for the Web.
Everything is represented by URIs, can ideally be dereferenced via HTTP,
and can be linked with other URIs [4]. Thus, the power of the Web is
inherited to RDF. As an example, you need not stream complete description
of some resources. You can just use URIs in your stream, and the complete
descriptions can be dereferenced on demand depending whether your data
stream consumers are interested in.

I hope this helps.

Best,
Fariz

[1]
http://www.slideshare.net/rgcmme/overview-of-the-w3c-semantic-sensor-network-ssn-ontology

[2] https://github.com/jpcik/morph-stream
[3] http://trowl.org/about/
[4] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html


Regards,
Fariz

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Haroon Rashid <haroonr@iiitd.ac.in> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Sorry for disturbing you during the weekend.
>
> Thanks
> ​Jean ​
> for the explanation.
> Here I am considering only IoT data. Generally, we send data from sensors
> in Json/ Xml format, where a specific value
> ​/reading ​
> is represented by different key-value pairs
> ​as​
>
> {sensor/device:
> ​ ​
> device_name
> type:
> ​ ​
> temperature
> value:
> ​ ​
> 32
> unit:
> ​ ​
> degree
> time:
> ​ ​
> 12:12:12
> }
> I
> ​k​
> now that RDF/RDFa data is machine interpretable because of URIs, which
> make it special. Things I am not able to understand
> ​ include:​
>
>
>    1.  How RDF makes data more discoverable? I mean even JSON/XML data is
>    discoverable because data is associated with a number of attributes as
>    shown in
>    ​the ​
>    example. In both representations,
>    ​ ​
>    i.e., json/xml or RDF representation
>    ​,​
>    ​
>    we must be knowing the attribute names or URIs before hand.
>    2. Also, you are saying that if we don’t know the data
>    source/structure a-priori, then RDF data allows us to do some fancy tasks.
>    Can you please elaborate it with an example? I think if we don’t have any
>    clue about data structure then It does not matters whether it is in json or
>    xml or RDF.
>
> The main point is here to find the importance of RDF/linked data. How it
> makes a different impact on the research community. Why should I represent
> my IoT data in RDF
> ​steams​
> ?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Jean Paul Calbimonte <
> jpcalbimonte@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Haroon,
> >
> > I guess there would be different answers to this.
> > One example can be data discovery. If you already know your data sources
> then it's usually fine to use existing technologies: you know your schema
> and you can use your old pub-sub stuff.
> > But in IoT and other domains you sometimes do not know that beforehand,
> and the interpretable data comes very handy to do fancy data discovery
> tasks. On the contrary, if we use e.g. CSV values 3.0, 4.5, 3, 6.7 without
> any semantic metadata it's impossible to know what your data source is
> about.
> >
> > I think there are many other examples, this could be one.
> >
> > Jean-Paul
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:34:48 +0530
> > From: haroonr@iiitd.ac.in
> > To: public-rsp@w3.org
> > Subject: Why we work on RSP
> >
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> >
> > My apologies if I have sent this mail to the wrong discussion group.
> >
> >
> > My name is Haroon and I have joined the RSP W3C group recently. I am
> working on linked, streaming data from last one month approximately. I am
> considering IoT data (say temperature, humidity readings)  as a source of
> continuous data streams.  I find this area exciting; recently I had a
> discussion with some of my colleagues about linked stream data processing..
> During discussion we mainly discussed around the  following points:
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> >
> > 1. Why we need to work on linked-data (RDF) streams ?
> > My response: Linked data is machine interpretable. Therefore
> > ,
> > we need to represent our data into linked data form so that machines can
> > understand it and possibly can reason over it. This also makes data
> sharable/reusable. Other data representations are not machine interpretable.
> >
> > 2. We have several data representations available (say XML, JSON, ….)
> and we have some efficient publish-subscribe systems, which consume IoT
> data streams and then push
> > the
> > relevant data to end users/applications. Existing data representations
> and publish-subscribe systems suffice the current needs
> > ,
> > then why should we go for linked streams data representation. Apart from
> machine-interpretable feature it does not add anything. Also
> > ,
> > it makes data much more verbose  and hence it might take more time to
> process the data at processing engine.
> > Response:  ….
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >  At the end of
> > the
> > discussion I found my colleagues were not satisfied because none of them
> was
> > an
> > expert in semantic technologies. Although I am satisfied about this area
> > ,
> > but I need genuine feedback/comments from your side about the above
> mentioned points. What makes linked
> > ,
> > streaming data representation so special that we need to work over it
> further?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Haroon Rashid
>
>
>
>
> --
> Haroon Rashid
>