Re: numeric web search (Was: URLs instead of URNs)

Wolfgang,

It sounds like your work may be somewhat related to what the Okkam
project is doing:
http://www.okkam.org/

David Booth


On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 11:59 +0100, Wolfgang Orthuber wrote:
> David,
> 
> 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
> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOMINFOJ/2008/00000002/00000001/21TOMINFOJ.SGM
> which shows an attractive application.
> 
> Best
> Wolfgang
> 
> Address:
> 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"
> <public-lod@w3.org>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
-- 
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 15:55:48 UTC