- From: ~:'' ありがとうございました。 <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 07:41:17 +0000
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: "semantic-web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Danny, like natural languages, it's essential that boundaries are highly flexible. It seems that the possibility for getting things wrong is a necessity. fortunately much can be considered rubbish and built upon. left for future archaeologists to unearth. or like the pyramids, buried with great care. lest they bury us. recently I've been developing yet another pre-alpha visual search engine, for svg icons. ie search for images by picture or text description: http://www.iconomy.org The idea being that anyone can copy and paste images into a document, which is then a category. they then upload the uri for their category, to the db. then anyone searching for the category or one of it's images, may find this resource.... If the vision of distributed description is to guide the development of SVG graphics, specifications need to be designed to ensure resources are published in a form which enables them to be easily repurposed. Specifications that include naive end users in a RAD process are likely to have reach and influence. We may reasonably hope they may help us to meet the somewhat demanding requirement to repurpose. There is no right first! regards Jonathan Chetwynd j.chetwynd@btinternet.com http://www.peepo.com/ +44 (0) 20 7978 1764 On 14 Mar 2008, at 22:27, Danny Ayers wrote: The other day, in conversation with Richard Cyganiak (recorded at [1]), I paraphrased something timbl had mentioned (recorded at [2]) : when expressing data as RDF on the Web, it's possible to make a rough guess at how the information should appear, and over time incrementally/iteratively improve its alignment with the rest of the world. I was upbeat on this (and my paraphrasing probably lost a lot of timbl's intent) because personally when doing things with RDF I find it hugely advantageous over a traditional SQL RDMS approach simply because you can be more agile - not getting your schema right first time isn't an obstacle to development. But the stuff I play with (which I do usually put on the web somewhere) isn't likely to develop a forward chain of dependencies. But Richard pointed out (no doubt badly paraphrasing again) that the making of statements when published on the Web brought with it a level of commitment. I don't think he used these words, but perhaps a kind of responsibility. The example he gave of where problems can arise was DBpedia - the modelling, use of terms, is revised every couple of months or so. Anyone who built an app based on last months vocab might find the app broken on next month's revision. I think Richard had properties particularly in mind - though even when Cool URIs are maintained, might not changes around connections to individuals still be problematic? So I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on how to accomodate rapid development (or at least being flexible over time) without repeatedly breaking consuming applications. How deep does our modelling have to go to avoid this kind of problem? Can the versioning bits of OWL make a significant difference? Or to turn it around, as a consumer of Semantic Web data, how do you avoid breakage due to changes upstream? Should we be prepared to retract/replace whole named graphs containing ontologies, do we need to keep provenance for *everything*? I suspect related - if we have a locally closed world, where do we put the boundaries? Cheers, Danny. [1] http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/2008/03/ a_chat_with_richard_cyganiak.php [2] http://blogs.zdnet.com/semantic-web/?p=105 -- http://dannyayers.com ~ http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/this_weeks_semantic_web/
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2008 07:41:58 UTC