W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2008

Re: A generic linked data editor with RDFa export

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:36:16 -0400
Message-Id: <4072D1E6-E9B2-4E7E-97E7-A396898A61E5@acm.org>
Cc: "SWIG" <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>

On Mar 22, 2008, at 5:33 AM, Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> Frank,
> Thanks for your feedback. Sorry for coming back to you that late; over
> here in Europe it is Easter and I hang out with our children,  
> *I*annis,
> *R*anya, and *S*aphira ;)

Sorry for *my* delay in responding;  Easter here too.

> Frankly, I don't have strong feelings about naming - I guess it very
> much depends on the context. For example, when people read 'IIS', I  
> bet
> most of them think of a piece of software a US-company tries to  
> offer as
> an alternative to Apache.  I don't. I think of our institute ;) So,
> concluding, I'd be happy to rename it to something like gUCI
> (generalised UCI) or UCIed or somesuch. Any proposals?

My comment wasn't  meant to be all that serious.  Perhaps calling it  
"irs" will help people here remember it more easily.  I did think it  
was funny though that, on the same day I received a message saying  
that my electronically-filed tax return had been accepted by "our"  
IRS, I received a message via SWIG announcing "your" irs.  Hence my  
response.  The existence of multiple meanings for the same word, set  
of initials, etc. has to be expected on the Semantic Web, which is  
one of the reasons why using URIs is important.  After all, "RDF"  
stands for "refuse-derived fuel", doesn't it?

> However, I'd like to discuss real issues with UCI. For example,  
> looking
> at the current i r s dump, I found the following:
> ?by                                         ?s
> ?p                                   ?o
> http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Elvis_Presley
> http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs http://dbpedia.org/resource/God
> Hm. Makes me think. This could mean:
> 1. TimBL was playing around with i r s and actually stated this (I do
> agree with the statement, however, can I trust it ? ;)
> 2. Someone else made this statement, claiming that TimBL  did
> 3. Even more subtle, TimBL did this on purpose to demonstrate that you
> should be careful trusting such statements on the (Semantic) Web
> In any case, I think the conclusion is to add a trust layer on top  
> of i
> r s. I was thinking of adding OpenID for the 'says' part. Any  
> thoughts?

For general UCI, you're certainly going to need to deal with those  
issues.  Even if all a link does is claim something generic like  
"seeAlso", there's no reason to expect unscrupulous people wouldn't  
make bogus claims that there is some relationship between, say, the  
concept of "Semantic Web application" and their particular piece of  
software, so you want to know something about the source of the  
statement, and you also want some way of establishing that what the  
data records as the source is the *real* source (non- 
impersonation).   But in essence this is no different for RDF than  
for natural language statements on the Web.

> Happy Easter!
> Cheers,
> 	Michael

And to you

Received on Monday, 24 March 2008 15:37:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:05 UTC