Re: Use of Content Management Systems, ranking and usage in Semantic Web

Hi Paola --

You wrote...

*we (me anyway) still have not quite understood  how to model RDF into
meaningful content structures*

One way is to add another level of semantics, via rules in executable
English.

The rules describe things that have meaning to people, such as

   some-name is an author , with email some-email , of some-title

To see this working, you can visit the site below, and run the example
called

     RDFQueryLangComparison1

If you prefer just to look at the example rather than run it, here is a
link:

   www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/RDFQueryLangComparison1.agent

There's also an overview paper and a short video:


www.reengineeringllc.com/A_Wiki_for_Business_Rules_in_Open_Vocabulary_Executable_English.pdf

  www.reengineeringllc.com/ibldrugdbdemo1.htm   (Flash video with audio)

Apologies if you have seen this before, and thanks for comments.

                                                    -- Adrian

Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English over SQL and
RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com    Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:54 AM, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Milton
>
> it's an important question, but the answer is non linear
>
> I am convinced that when CMS (and blogs) will output their stuff as
> RDF, then the semantic web will be a done thing.
>
> but, assuming such a functionality exists,  we (me anyway) still have
> not quite understood  how to model RDF into meaningful content
> structures
>
>  shall we use metadata structures to infer RDF triples? or do we use
> reasoning parsers  (thats a new technology I just made up) to digest
> content and output triples that make sense?
>
> >
> > In order to transition from plain vanilla web sites with run-of-the-mill
> > content management systems (CMSs) to semantic web enabled sites with
> > corresponding CMSs, a lot of functionality has to be added.
>
> yes, but....
> in a content management context we need to define better what we mean
> by semantic. In CMS  logic (my take) semantic = relational
>
> if so, then all CMS have semantic capabilities, in principles, because
> they all use relational dbases, therefore the relationships between
> objects just need to be defined, and  the functionality that needs to
> be developed is just some kind of user friendly interface to ' let a
> relate to b' and output content to XYZ schema
>
> I was just looking for Dan Brick's profile on Facebook, and thinking,
> how on earth is Facebook doing the friends networks without using
> FOAF? its loose relational technology a bit augmented perhaps to
> capture expanded value sets, I think
>
> if however, by semantic you mean CMS that can produce content
> published as 'rdf'  format,  then to derive RDF schemas from HTML
> content  looks relatively trivial, is just a schema mapping exercise
>
> The question for a cms user would be to devise logically and
> meaningfully consistent RDF schemas - that's where I got stuck last
> time I looked at this issue, a couple of years ago or so.
>
>
> > We are trying to find out if any reports exist on the ranking and usage
> in
> > Semantic Web context of CMSs and also if comparison tables exist, e.g.
> > listing SW standards, metadata sets and other items compared for the CMSs
> > and also, who are the users of such CMSs?
>
> so many questions in one sentence...
> AFAIK , all CMS can be set up to output content using ANY schema, as
> long as the schema is defined, therefore, in principle, all CMS s have
> semantic capabilities, provided they have been configured to do so
>
> When I requested an RDF feature for Drupal I was thinking of a module
> that could translate content into RDF, not sure how Drupal is setting
> up for RDF,   havent looked into it yet. Other nice functinalities
> could be 'visualise' and manipulate queries
> >
> > Many non-profits are migrating to web sites with CMSs, of which Plone,
> > Joomla and Drupal seem to be quite popular.
> >
>
>
> > But we feel that the popular ranking and usage of available CMSs does not
> > necessarily reflect the ranking as per SW functionality.
> > Another issue of particular importance for users of such sites is browser
> > add-ons and plugins for semantic web technologies.
>
> once the functionality is defined, its relatively easy to implement
> it, what we are having difficulties in understanding is what exactly
> you would consider a requirement in this arena
>
>
> > Are there any reports,list, directories and comparison charts for
> currently
> > available browsers, listing available plugins and add-ons?
>
>
> Please let us know what you find out,
>
> best
> PDM
> >
>
>