- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:44:09 -0700
- To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
- CC: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <55C25979.8060007@ucsb.edu>
> 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