W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > March 2015

Re: Vocabulary 'tutorial'?

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:07:13 +0100
Message-ID: <550FD7C1.2010504@wwelves.org>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, "Bassetti, Ann" <ann.bassetti@boeing.com>, Social Web Working Group <public-socialweb@w3.org>, Social Interest Group <public-social-interest@w3.org>
CC: "Martin, Julie" <julie.martin@boeing.com>, "Donovan, Andrew R" <andrew.r.donovan@boeing.com>
Hi Erik,

On 03/23/2015 09:56 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello harry.
> 
> On 2015-03-22 21:12, Harry Halpin wrote:
>> In terms of creating new vocabularies, an online tutorial would be good
>> as well. However, like many Semantic Web efforts, the tooling is still
>> in a pretty primitive state.
> 
> i am wondering if/why semantic tooling would even be required. if we say
> that AS2 is JSON-based, then there's no requirement to define new
> vocabularies with RDF, correct? semantic tooling would be necessary for
> those who *want* to use it, but that would be outside of AS's scope.
If we design RDF Ontologies, those who want to use them as still JSON
can do that thanks to JSON-LD. It comes with certain limitations but we
can consider it a Lite mode which will not provide all the robust
features. If we don't keep RDF in mind while designing, it may not work
very well if someone wants to use more powerful features and treat it as
Linked Data.


> 
> https://github.com/dret/ASDL/blob/master/0.1/subVerb-asdl.md
> demonstrates the approach we've been taking: use a structured format for
> documenting vocabularies, without requiring one specific formalism how
> to formally describe them.
> 
> https://github.com/dret/ASDL/blob/master/0.1/ASDL.md is the simple
> language we're using, and the idea is that people can use what they feel
> comfortable with, and what they need. people who want to describe their
> vocabulary in RDF can do so, and distilling ASDL from such a vocabulary
> would be trivial. people who have no need for RDF are free to do what
> AS1 did, just using text specifications.
> 
> the approach follows the idea of https://github.com/dret/sedola, which
> has the same idea of providing a basic documentation harness (in the
> case of sedola it's used for for media types, HTTP link headers and link
> relation types), without forcing people to subscribe to a single
> modeling framework that's required to formally describe these things.
Could you please give an example of how those who want to treat it as
Link Data can simply do so? Once again, we can not just say "we don't
mind if you try to use it as Linked Data", but if we want to make it
possible we must keep it in mind when we design things.


> 
> as an experiment, i have created sedola documentation for many W3C and
> IETF specs, and despite the fact that these are using different (and
> often no) formalisms, this still results in a useful list of the
> concepts that matter:
> 
> * https://github.com/dret/sedola/blob/master/MD/mediatypes.md
> * https://github.com/dret/sedola/blob/master/MD/headers.md
> * https://github.com/dret/sedola/blob/master/MD/linkrels.md
Looks cool! I guess meant for human consumption and not for machine
processing?

Cheers!

> 
> cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 



Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 09:08:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 December 2016 15:48:21 UTC