W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009

numeric web search (Was: URLs instead of URNs)

From: Wolfgang Orthuber <orthuber@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 11:59:10 +0100
Message-ID: <002e01c9dd27$d5102d40$a3b35ec2@workstation>
To: "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: "semantic-web" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Linked Data community" <public-lod@w3.org>

we have independently drawn the same conclusions, this seems to be most efficient. Numeric similarity search 
needs an efficient approach. Figure 2 in
http://www.orthuber.com/wp1.pdf shows that there are only a few steps that linked data are the first which 
allow numeric web search with world wide task sharing. The searchable patterns are

HTTP URIs with feature vectors (sequences of numbers).

Sequences of numbers are the natural way to describe quantifiable objects, e.g. time as one floating point
number (e.g. seconds since 2000), GPS coordinates as two floating point numbers, complex measurement results
with more than 100 floating point numbers.

Concerning this suggestions and examples for the best (efficient) syntax are welcome!

You may also look at
which shows an attractive application.


Dr. Wolfgang Orthuber, Mathematician, Orthodontist, University Clinic of Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany
Arnold Heller Str. 16
24105 Kiel

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org>
To: "W. Orthuber" <orthuber@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de>
Cc: "Hugh Glaser" <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>; "semantic-web" <semantic-web@w3.org>; "Linked Data community"
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 3:45 AM
Subject: Re: URLs instead of URNs (Was URI lifecycle (Was: Owning URIs))

> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 17:08 +0100, W. Orthuber wrote:
>> David,
>> >> In short, although semantic web architecture could be designed to permit
>> >> unrestricted semantic drift,
>> >>I think it is a better design -- better
>> >> serving the semantic web community as a whole -- to adopt an
>> >> architecture that permits the semantics of each URI to be anchored, by
>> >> use of a URI declaration.
>> >Absolutement.
>> Yes, I think also, URIs should be well defined. Up to now I thought they are, but your article shows that
>> URIs (which are not URLs)
>> have not necessarily an unique definition! Moreover URI should be anchored; the best would be that they
>> contain a link to all their
>> definition and further bindingly associated information.
>> Why not prefer URIs which are (special "defining") URLs, which contain
>> a link to a file which contains links to all defining
>> information (unambiguous
>> information, in multiple languages if wished)?
>> So the anchor would be at once accessible and there would be exactly
>> one location for the decisive information.
> Yes, the preferred way to do that is quite well described in "Cool URIs
> for the Semantic Web":
> http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris
> -- 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 09:56:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:12 UTC