W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > March 2007

Re: data format for gathered information

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:30:46 +0100
Message-ID: <45E6C776.8090507@w3.org>
To: Uldis Bojars <uldis.bojars@deri.org>
Cc: 'Leo Sauermann' <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>, 'Danny Ayers' <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, 'W3C SWEO IG' <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>, 'Kingsley Idehen' <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, 'Benjamin Nowack' <bnowack@appmosphere.com>, 'Ian Davis' <Ian.Davis@talis.com>

Uldis Bojars wrote:
> Ivan,
> In this particular case a discussion on a mailing may be best, but it is
> also possible to leave comments on the wiki. They are usually written in a
> separate paragraph (right after the thing they are commenting, or at the end
> of the document) and "signed" with a name of a person leaving the comment.
> You can also indent them to separate from the main text. See an example at
> [1].
> [1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?VisualizeTheWiki
> It's a good idea about dcterms vocabulary. What properties do you suggest we
> use from it? SIOC is currently using dcterms:created and dcterms:modified to
> be more specific that generic dc:date, but there may be other potential
> candidates for reuse.
just ideas:




(see http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/index.shtml)

there lots of things there, though there might be overlaps with some
DOAP terms, for example. But if we are talking about electronic
resources, eg, books or tutorials, some of these really make sense

> For books and articles also look at [2] describing MarcOnt - an initiative
> to create an ontology for bibliographical information and to mediate between
> different formats out there.
> [2]
> http://www.marcont.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=4
> 4

Well, this is the typical case when we should follow the advise of the
Digital Library community, we are talking about scholarly references
here. However, I brought up BibTeX is because it has become, de facto,
the vocabulary of choice in academic circles, ie, it looks like the best
platform to be used

(Caveat: people usually have their data in BibTeX format and they would
prefer to submit it that way. Some time ago I tried to find a simple
BibTeX parser that I could have hacked to produce the RDF version I
wanted, and I did not find any:-(


> Best,
> Uldis
> [ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:17 PM
> To: Leo Sauermann
> Cc: Danny Ayers; W3C SWEO IG; Kingsley Idehen; Benjamin Nowack; Ian Davis
> Subject: Re: data format for gathered information
> Leo,
> it is a bit difficult to edit, because the page should reflect concensus...
> so I prefer to comment and discuss here.
> - Using the doap, skos, etc, is obviously the way to go. Actually, using
> skos is a great idea of yours!
> - I am not sure about the usage of RSS. I have the feeling that it is a
> little bit of a misuse here. I wonder whether the full power of DC is not
> enough here; not only the core dc terms like dc:title and such that
> everybody knows but, also, the dcterm vocabulary[1] I have the impression
> that those, combined with maybe some extra properties of our own may replace
> your choice of RSS. (to be checked)
> - For books and articles, I think we need something more strucured, like
> BibTeX, in order to allow for, say, more scholarly usage. The problem is
> that it is not 100% obvious how to represent bibtex in RDF, look at my
> recent blog and the comments[2]. We may have to byte the bullet and choose
> one or modify one).
> [As an aside, it was one of you guys, I think, who drew my attention on
> BibSonomy[3] which uses nice features to store bibliographical data as well,
> it is a pity that the bibtex they use is broken[2] otherwise we could have
> used it)
> - I was looking at DOAP; its description on [4] refers to "DOAP is a project
> to create an XML/RDF vocabulary to describe open source projects." I was
> wondering whether it would also be suitable to describe non-commercial
> projects, ie, where the 'open sourceness' is in DOAP.
> Sure, there are references to repositories and copyrights, but I presume it
> is all right to ignore those when we talk about commercial projects.
> To be checked, nevertheless...
> - Whether the core 'glue', binding all that together, should be SIOC, as
> Kingsley proposes, or something else, I am not sure. I must admit I am not
> familiar with all the details of SIOC in this sense. I am a little bit
> afraid (just like for RSS) to reuse something just because some of the
> properties and classes are around that are close to what we want, but it is
> not *really* meant for that. I know there is a fuzzy line there, and may not
> apply to SIOC (as I said, I am not sure about that one), but we should be
> careful about that.
> I am sure other issues will pop up...
> Ivan
> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/
> [2] http://ivanherman.wordpress.com/2007/01/13/bibtex-in-rdf/
> [3] http://www.bibsonomy.org
> [4] http://usefulinc.com/doap/
> Leo Sauermann wrote:
>>Hi Guys,
>>perhaps read the wiki-page in parallel to this email thread.
>>DOAP, FOAF, etc are all mentioned there already, 
>>Benjamin, Ivan, you are free to edit the wiki page, just change/adapt 
>>it so that it reflects your approach, please start editing.
>>(no edits so far,
>>this is a wiki, free speech, last change wins, anything goes, like
>>Es begab sich aber da Benjamin Nowack zur rechten Zeit 26.02.2007 
>>11:24 folgendes schrieb:
>>>On 22.02.2007 19:55:52, Leo Sauermann wrote:
>>>>I see two things to face, first:
>>>>Describing Information items as such, such as tools, websites, 
>>>>presentaitons, tutorials. This should be done using RSS 1.0, and in 
>>>>some cases when needed extended using DOAP, foaf, etc. This is pretty 
>>>>straightforward, please review and update this site until you agree:
>>>Not sure about the RSS design decision, it pretty much restricts the 
>>>resource types to documents, so we can't really use it as an 
>>>"umbrella" spec. My 2 highly redundant cents:
>>>- I found DOAP to work fine for most things software, DCMI provides a
>>> number of handy resource type URIs[1] which could be used to augment
>>> doap:Version resources (e.g. dctype:Collection, dctype:Dataset,
>>> dctype:InteractiveResource, dctype:Service), or owl:Ontology for
>>> projects that produce vocabularies (e.g. the FOAF project)
>>That was partly already there,
>>please edit the wiki page so that it reflects your exact ideas, but I 
>>think the current version already is like you say here.
>>>- tags (skos:subject, or dc:subject) for more specific stuff (personal
>>> preference: the more fine-grained skos options)
>>ok, one more for SKOS
>>>- Danny's review vocab[2] for ratings/reviews
>>please add this to the wiki page!
>>>- a combination of the two rdf/iCal specs[3][4] (with and without
>>> timezone-datatyped timestamps) for events
>>they are rather buggy and not clear which one to use, but I would go 
>>for the simpler (not-timezone-as-datatype-one).
>>Es begab sich aber da Danny Ayers zur rechten Zeit 22.02.2007 20:25 
>>folgendes schrieb:
>>>Quick thoughts: I see the motivation re. reuse, but rather than 
>>>trying to use solely RSS 1.0 for the items, it might be better to use 
>>>more precise terms where they exist, as_well_as the RSS terms, e.g.
>>><http://example.org/doc> a rss:item; a foaf:Document .
>>I also thought about this, but if you require from all participants to 
>>do that, it sucks.
>>Why should anyone annotate two types if one is enough? This is the 
>>format we expect external data to be in, inference should add the 
>>additional triples.
>>>For the taxo stuff, SKOS sounds a very good idea generally, though I 
>>>wouldn't be surprised if there were existing vocabs that could be 
>>>used for things like "tutorial" etc.
>>>I'll cc Ian, he hangs around libraries...
>>>It might also be worth considering (perhaps redundantly again) the 
>>>Tag Ontology at http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/
>>SKOS covers this and more, so would rather use skos.
>>DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 
>>Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer
>>Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
>>Trippstadter Strasse 122
>>P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
>>D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
>>Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de
>>Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter 
>>Olthoff Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
>>Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
>>Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 1 March 2007 12:30:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:32:06 UTC