W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > August 2015

Re: 'area profiles' - use case for back links

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:44:09 -0700
Message-ID: <55C25979.8060007@ucsb.edu>
To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
CC: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> It has the potential, however, to make the Web of Data much more 
> easily navigable.

Yes, but it would also be a great tool for DoS attacks, SPAM, and so 
forth. You can check back links in your own logs and I think it would be 
great to have a nice tool or even hub that collects such data but I 
would not propose it as an architectural feature of the Linked Data Web. 
Also, as argued before this is not a spatial data problem.

Jano


On 08/05/2015 11:38 AM, Joshua Lieberman wrote:
> Exactly some of the issues to work out. For example, it could start to 
> be a condition of using someone’s data to send back a link to the new 
> data (product) in return. Or there could be a role for 3rd parties to 
> support the links (a more generalized version of populating the web 
> with owl:SameAs triples). It has the potential, however, to make the 
> Web of Data much more easily navigable.
>
> -Josh
>
>> On Aug 5, 2015, at 2:31 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu 
>> <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I would be careful about the back-linking as this has 
>> many implications on LinkedData as an infrastructure. Where would 
>> such back links be stored, can I filter them by source, etc?
>>
>> Best,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>>
>> On 08/05/2015 08:32 AM, Joshua Lieberman wrote:
>>> We are having to deal with some confusion over spatial specialness 
>>> because many important capabilities for spatial data also have 
>>> conceivable usefulness for other data. The difference is often one 
>>> of centrality. Spatial data “always” deals with features, the basis 
>>> of defining what the data represents. It is usually valuable and 
>>> often essential for working with distributed spatial data to be able 
>>> to identify where features and/or geometries are being shared, e.g. 
>>> links to all the data that characterize not just more or less the 
>>> same location but the same feature such as a hill or an aquifer. The 
>>> reference back to a shared feature or perhaps a shared observation 
>>> concerning a feature is an important constraint on the relationships 
>>> between forward-linked data elements as well as their mutual 
>>> validity. For example, suppose there exist 5 datasets describing the 
>>> bus arrivals for the same bus stop. It would raise questions if 
>>> those times did not agree. We would only know that by being able to 
>>> find multiple arrival datasets linked from the bus stop feature. 
>>> Links are needed both from and to related data in some fashion in 
>>> order to enable “crawlability" as well as to answer both directional 
>>> questions, i.e. what data was this data derived from (provenance) 
>>> and what other data is making use of this data (usage).
>>>
>>>
>>> It is conceivable that someone might want to follow all the links to 
>>> data that show a temperature of “9” or a color of “blue” but those 
>>> are arguably not central to use of distributed data in general. 
>>> While there are some other capabilities that should be considered 
>>> general data-on-the-web issues, It makes sense to me in this case 
>>> for the SDWWG to take the lead in recommending this capability and 
>>> let others then look at generalizing this to non-spatial data.
>>>
>>> Josh
>>>
>>> Joshua Lieberman, Ph.D.
>>> Principal
>>> Tumbling Walls
>>> jlieberman*tumblingwalls.com <http://tumblingwalls.com/>
>>> +1 617 431 6431
>>>
>>>> On Aug 5, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com 
>>>> <mailto:bill@swirrl.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a strong feeling about this and agree it is a more 
>>>> general problem than just spatial. We could perhaps identify a good 
>>>> solution, perhaps one from another domain, and list this in our 
>>>> best practices. Maybe the data on the web group has something to 
>>>> say on the issue?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5 Aug 2015, at 15:53, Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org 
>>>> <mailto:Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> frans,
>>>>> I suppose because the "linking", including "backlinks" , is a 
>>>>> major( the major?) reason for our existence....and a serious 
>>>>> missing element in existing standards for spatial data publishing/ 
>>>>> consuming. Does that argument stand up?
>>>>> Kerry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6 Aug 2015, at 12:38 am, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl 
>>>>> <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-08-05 16:08 GMT+02:00 Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org 
>>>>>> <mailto:Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Bill,
>>>>>>     This seems to me to be a use case we need, that is kind-of
>>>>>>     there in a few  use cases but not so explicit as you have
>>>>>>     described it here ( although you have included some solution
>>>>>>     suggestions). Can you put it on the use case page on the wiki
>>>>>>     as a starting point to processing it further?
>>>>>>     @Frans, @Alejandro, would that be appropriate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I think it would.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     This is not really specific to "spatial" linking but I do
>>>>>>     think it is something we should specifically address
>>>>>>     nevertheless...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was my initial thought too: backlinking is an understandable 
>>>>>> requirement, but I don't see how it fits within our scope. Why do 
>>>>>> you think we should address it nevertheless? It would be nice if 
>>>>>> we can discover the spatialness of the matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Frans
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Kerry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On 5 Aug 2015, at 10:32 pm, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com
>>>>>>     <mailto:bill@swirrl.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Hi all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     In last week's call I mentioned a use case for 'back links'
>>>>>>>     to places - the question of what resources are linked to my
>>>>>>>     location of interest, or in RDF terminology, which triples
>>>>>>>     exist with my location as the object. Something that comes
>>>>>>>     up frequently in our work for local government is 'area
>>>>>>>     profiles' - selecting and presenting data about a place. 
>>>>>>>     The data typically covers topics like demographics, health,
>>>>>>>     economy, environment etc. and in our work is usually
>>>>>>>     represented as statistical data in linked data form, using
>>>>>>>     the RDF Data Cube vocabulary. The RDF links generally go
>>>>>>>     from an 'observation' to the place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     The area profile usually this incorporates some kind of
>>>>>>>     simple map of the place, plus simple charts of selected
>>>>>>>     data.  See
>>>>>>>     http://profiles.hampshirehub.net/profiles/E06000045 for an
>>>>>>>     example
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     This is straightforward in principle if all the available
>>>>>>>     data is in a single database - you can retrieve the things
>>>>>>>     you want by SPARQL query.  A more general and challenging
>>>>>>>     problem is to answer a user question along the lines of
>>>>>>>     'what data is available about location X' drawing from
>>>>>>>     distributed data sources. A practical solution to that would
>>>>>>>     generally involve some manual discovery and integration -
>>>>>>>     becoming aware through various means of the existence of a
>>>>>>>     relevant data collection (by web search, or personal
>>>>>>>     recommendation, or social media or whatever), deciding if it
>>>>>>>     holds info about a place then adding it to a list of
>>>>>>>     services that could be queried to pull back the data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Sometimes this could be more complicated if we are
>>>>>>>     interested not only in data that links directly to our place
>>>>>>>     identifier, but to related identifiers (other names for same
>>>>>>>     thing, a sub-area or super-area of the place in question etc).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     The challenge in question is one of discovery. The most
>>>>>>>     practical solution might be 'just google it' (having allowed
>>>>>>>     search engines to crawl the data collections). Perhaps more
>>>>>>>     targeted indexes for specific domains of interest could meet
>>>>>>>     the same need with less noise. Querying metadata of data
>>>>>>>     catalogues might be another option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Best regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Bill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Frans Knibbe
>>>>>> Geodan
>>>>>> President Kennedylaan 1
>>>>>> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
>>>>>> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
>>>>>> www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl/>
>>>>>> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Krzysztof Janowicz
>>
>> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
>> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
>>
>> Email:jano@geog.ucsb.edu
>> Webpage:http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
>> Semantic Web Journal:http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>


-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2015 18:44:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:17 UTC