Re: Why we work on RSP

Thanks Fariz for the detailed explanation. Although I understood the
importance of RDF, but I am still curious to know why people are not
interested in it. I think people either find it difficult to adapt or find
it much more verbose.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Fariz Darari <fadirra@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>


-- 
Haroon Rashid