- From: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:58:12 +0100
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- CC: ext Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>, Ora Lassila <ora.lassila@nokia.com>, "<semantic-web@w3.org>" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi all, Es begab sich aber zu der Zeit 05.04.2005 06:57, da Patrick Stickler schrieb: >> Extending my other software clients to use it is trivial, and >> (seeing as they also use Wilbur) making a knowledge-sharing web of >> apps using URIQA is a simple matter. > jup. have a look at www.gnowsis.org we used CBD's to write simpler adapters than full graph implementations. (ie http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/d2rq/) if you download the latest release http://www.gnowsis.org/statisch/download/gnowsis_0.8.1.zip http://www.gnowsis.org/statisch/download/gnowsisSetup_0.8.1.exe you find the source to many so called "CBD adapters" we did an interface CBDEnhanced and used it throughout the whole application. at the end, most of the system is somehow CBD enhanced and a single URIQA server on the side gives access to * MSOutlook * IMAP emails & folders * filesystem ... by the consequent use of CBDs and URL/URIs for identifying resources. I am actually in writing a paper right now for ISWC about this topic, it is quite obvious from our view that writing adapters can be done in many ways and we have tested most of them, cbd is quite a quick start for it. cheers Leo > > > ;-) > >> >> Granted, this has not been well-tested, and I haven't compared it >> thoroughly to the reference implementation (there's a shortage of >> Windows machines in my office!), but it seems to work on my machine >> :) I thought you might be interested regardless. >> > > Definitely. > >> Full scoop at [3]. > > > Thanks! > > Patrick > > >> >> -R >> >> [1] <http://wilbur-rdf.sourceforge.net> >> [2] <http://cliki.net/Araneida> >> [3] <http://www.holygoat.co.uk/blog/entry/2005-04-04-2> >> >> On Apr 4, 2005, at 07:17, Patrick Stickler wrote: >> >>> Actually, because URIQA is based at the lowest architectural layer >>> of the web, the >>> HTTP protocol itself, adoption of URIQA is orders of magnitude >>> easier and less >>> costly than other "best practice" solutions (e.g. special headers, >>> embedded metadata, >>> content negotiation, etc.) because implementation and deployment of >>> the fundamental >>> URIQA functionality can be constrained to the web server platform >>> itself, either >>> natively or by plug in, and each web site owner does not have to >>> introduce, police, >>> and manage the practices of each user, but rather, each user is free >>> to exploit >>> the standardized functionality made available for describing resources. >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 11:58:51 UTC