Re: Southampton Pub data as linked open data

Hi Bijan,

please don't unsubscribe from the Semantic Web mailing list.

I'm a big fan of having structured data with clear semantics published
on the Web. The clearer the semantics the better.

It would be great if we would have all data sources that are currently
listed at programmableweb.org online as Linked Data and if the data
and its schemata would be represented using OWL.

My argument was driven mainly from the deployment and education point
of view.

When I talk to the people with a Web 2.0 background it is usually much
easier to get them interested in Linked Data, RDF and RDFS as it is to
get them interested in OWL. This might change in the future when OWL
is used more on the public Web and when Web applications (like
browsers and search engines) start to take advantage of OWL.

But for now, I think the right approach in order to address broader
communities is to make using Semantic Web technologies as easy as
possible for them and this (at least for me) currently does mean not
to talk about OWL too much.

I'm happy to be proven wrong on this point.

Cheers

Chris

--
Chris Bizer
Freie Universität Berlin
Phone: +49 30 838 55509
Mail: chris@bizer.de
Web: www.bizer.de


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Southampton Pub data as linked open data


>
> On Jul 30, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Chris Bizer wrote:
>
>> Hi Bijan and Richard,
>>
>> I think it would be helpful for this discussion to distinguish a 
>> bit between the different use cases of Semantic Web technologies.
>>
>> Looking back at the developments over the last years, I think there 
>> are two general types of use cases:
>
> I really don't accept this analytical framework. It has more than a 
> bit of the just so story about it.
>
>> 1. Sophisticated, reasoning-focused applications which use an 
>> expressive ontology language and which require sound formal 
>> semantics and consistent ontologies in order to deliver their 
>> benefits to the user. In order to keep things consistent, these 
>> applications usually only work with data from a small set of data 
>> sources. In order to be able to apply sophisticated reasoning 
>> mechanisms, these applications usually only work with small 
>> datasets.
>
> The last two are just not true and very unhelpful. Can we stop 
> there?
>
> (Consider the general work on tractable fragments. Consider the SHER 
> work.)
>
>> 2. The general open Web use case where many information providers 
>> use Semantic Web technologies to publish and interlink structured 
>> data on the Web. Within this use case, the benefits for the user 
>> mainly come from the large amounts of Web-accessible data and the 
>> ability to discover related information from other data sources by 
>> following RDF links.
>
> I don't think I believe this either. And least not in the 
> substantive  claims that follow.
>
> (Check out the Tambis and the DL Lite papers. Tambis is *exactly* 
> about using ontologies to provide better *user* experience of 
> navigating over multiple, independent data sources. DL Lite is 
> *designed* to handle the data integration case wherein you can leave 
> your data in the original RDBMSs and yet have a view that is more 
> "conceptual" (and intuitive) which also allows for proper 
> distributed  query.)
>
>> For each type of the use cases, there is usually a different set of 
>> technologies applied. OWL and classic heavy-weight reasoning for 
>> the first use case. HTTP, RDF, RDFS and light-weight smushing 
>> techniques for the second use case.
>
> A more useful, imho, categorization is that there are several 
> different sorts of task, e.g.,:
>
> 1) determining what to present (and how)
> 2) modeling
> 3) determining how to navigate
> 4) mapping and otherwise meshing
>
> All of these occur in ontology land. Indeed, 2 is usually *in 
> service* of the other ones. (Please check out Alan's slides I 
> referenced earlier.)
>
> Forget OWL exists. I think I would *still* have a problem with the 
> merge of all these roles that you see with things like 
> subpropertying  rdfs:label.
>
>> In the first use case, people think in terms of "ontologies", for 
>> instance a basic concept in OWL2 are ontologies. In the second use 
>> case, classes and properties are mixed from different vocabularies 
>> as people see fit and are related to each other by RDF links.
>
> I don't see how the latter follows from anything about the second 
> use  case. At least not in a non-tendentious manner.
>
>> The second use case is inspired by the Web 2.0 movement and aims at 
>> extending the web with a
>> data commons into which *many* people publish data.
>
> Many people publish Web data without understanding or even knowing 
> the existence of HTML. Most people who *publish* data in the world 
> (a  lot of people!) having considerable data modeling and data 
> format  skills. I really don't see that RDF is so much better off 
> than many  of these (having worked with very non-data-literate 
> people).
>
>> As it is not very likely that all these people will be logicians 
>> and understand (or are interested in) the formal semantics behind 
>> the things they do,
>
> Most people writing OWL ontologies are not logicians. It's kind of 
> hard to take your analysis too seriously if you elide this basic 
> fact.
>
>> people (including me) working on the second use case are often a 
>> bit critical about too tight formal semantics and extended public 
>> discussions about minor details that arise from some specs.
>
> Funny, I've been trying over and over to move this discussion into 
> "What would be a more useful presentation mechanism" or "What are 
> the  real requirements of a labeling system". Why not engage *that*?
>
>> These discussions have been a mayor obstacle to deploying the 
>> Semantic Web over the last years as they drive away people away 
>> from using the technologies.
> [snip]
>
> *Really*. Are you kidding? On what evidence do you base this?
>
> More of an obstacle than "RDF is magic and so much better than XML 
> because it does magic merging" lines? Do you follow the HTML world 
> and how it views RDF (based on, for example, the RSS and Mozilla 
> experiences)?
>
> I mean, a good chunk of the Web world spends its time arguing about 
> the semantics of elements in fussy detail. (When do you use abbr? 
> What is an alt text exactly?)
>
> So, sorry, I've experienced your line as a *constant drumbeat* since 
> I started working on the semantic web and it just seems to be a 
> "shut  up and don't think" line rather than a serious empirical 
> analysis.  There's nothing novel about it, afaict, nor is there any 
> substantive,  grounded content to it, afaict.
>
> Note this *does not mean* I am, in fact, the straw man people seem 
> to  want me to be. I'm *not* arguing that OWL or the logical core of 
> OWL  is the be all and end all of *anything*. I try hard to find 
> specific  descriptions of when OWL is a large win for its users and 
> try to  steer people away from OWL (or RDF or XML) when it's not 
> right for them.
>
> I've been spending a *huge* amount of time trying to get decent 
> annotations into OWL and do you know what the biggest, the single 
> biggest, barrier is? Serializing them into RDF. Just trying to get 
> annotations on annotations (of arbitrary depth) is a real nightmare 
> (yet trivial in XML :().
>
> Sigh. Perhaps it's time to unsubscribe to this list. The reflexive 
> OWL bashing is getting to me. As is the implicit  and sometimes 
> explicit) arguments from I'm-in-the-cool-group-and-you're-not. I 
> don't know why it's so hard to grasp that someone can be both a 
> logician *AND* seriously engaged in human factors, but here I am.
>
> Or not. If you'd like further replies from me, please send to my 
> address directly.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>

Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 17:32:37 UTC