W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 18:05:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKjz-uNyB7kVFvnSxQpU6Ai_w9-=3bun=jYE+T-y7hLqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: Natanael Arndt <arndtn@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 26 February 2016 at 16:55, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> On 02/26/2016 09:23 AM, Natanael Arndt wrote:
>
>> Dear Juan,
>> did you find any answer to to this question?
>>
>> And is the 2007/03 Version still the current Layer Cake?
>>
>
> The biggest problem with that layer cake is that it shows XML as part of
> the foundation, which it isn't.  XML is pretty much irrelevant.  It was
> historically used for the first standard serialization of RDF (known as
> RDF/XML).  But we now have better standard RDF serializations such as
> Turtle and JSON-LD (the latest, based on JSON).  It is very misleading to
> have XML in the layer cake.


XML vs JSON LD vs Turtle vs RDFa are largely interchangeable, actually a
red herring ...

Instead of reading XML, understand what is the connotation.  Namely, a
universal format capable of expressing triples via the web of documents.

On top of that we see the giant global graph delivered via the web of
documents (it could be delivered in other ways one day)

The giant global graph (ggg) of data will be highly connected and self
organizing via bottom up emergent design.  Smart data instead of smart
servers.  Ontologies and the like will cluster to give common usage
patterns and allow reuse.

As the web of documents was the discourse of humanity, the web of data (aka
semantic web) will be a giant declarative state machine for humanity,
capable of reading small or large sections.

But reading / browsing is the old way.  We want everyone on the planet to
interact with the sum of human knowledge.  We should think beyond
"browsers", which essentially say, "you can look but you cant touch".

We want the ggg to be dynamic, vital, living

For that you need read and write technology preferably unencumbered

So every human being is a stake holder, not just mediated through monoliths

For that you need the ability to read and write, and a minimal permissions
and identity system, ie i should be able to control WHO can read and write
my part of the GGG

Each part of the layer cake represents ways in which smart data can be a
reflection of the world.  Syntax and technology are largely
interchangeable, but if you get through the connotation behind it, you can
see which aspect of the universal it is trying to model.


>
>
> David Booth
>
>
>
>> Thank you
>> Natanael
>>
>> On 30 Jul 2007, at 11:42, Juan Sequeda wrote:
>>  >
>>  > Is there a specific document that explains the layer cake?
>>  >
>>  > On 7/30/07, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey <klaskey@gmu.edu> wrote:
>>  > >
>>  > > None of the pieces "go through" any other pieces. However, "proof"
>>  > > does border on "unifying logic" as it wraps around to "rule", which
>>  > > (I am guessing) might mean that unifying logic does have an influence
>>  > > in how rules and proofs "play together".  (My naive guess would be
>>  > > that rules are used in proofs, but I don't know that.)  A bigger
>>  > > concern is that "proof" doesn't even touch "ontology." That seems
>>  > > strange to me.  Also, "Query" doesn't touch "Rule."
>>  > >
>>  > > Absent any explanation of the diagram, though, I have no idea what
>>  > > any of this actually means.
>>  > >
>>  > > Kathy
>>  > >
>>  > > At 11:13 AM -0500 7/30/07, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>  > > >  >Content-Type: multipart/signed;
>>  > > protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature";
>>  > > >>      micalg=sha1;
>> boundary="------------ms050805050601010506060202"
>>  > > >>
>>  > > >>Graphically, this is _almost_ equivalent to what is the most
>> up-to-date
>>  > > >>for now:
>>  > > >>
>>  > > >  >http://www.w3.org/2007/03/layerCake.png
>>  > > >
>>  > > >Hmm, I wonder why the 'Proof' Tetris piece has a
>>  > > >connection to Rule without going through Unifying
>>  > > >Logic. That seems like a very bad decision to me
>>  > > >:-)
>>  > > >
>>  > > >Pat
>>  > > >
>>  > > >>
>>  > > >>which also have an SVG version:
>>  > > >>
>>  > > >>http://www.w3.org/2007/03/layerCake.svg
>>  > > >>
>>  > > >>and a smaller png dump
>>  > > >>
>>  > > >>http://www.w3.org/2007/03/layerCake-small.png
>>  > > >>
>>  > > >>
>>  > > >>Ivan
>>  > > >>
>>  > > >>
>>  > > >>
>>  > > >>Story Henry wrote:
>>  > > >>>
>>  > > >>>   No this is the latest
>>  > > >>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/Talks/0130-sb-W3CTechSemWeb/layerCake-4.png
>>  > > >>>
>>  > > >>>   The applications at the top are really important. It is they
>>  > > >>>that will help
>>  > > >>>   create tension for the convergence of vocabularies.
>>  > > >>>
>>  > > >>>   Henry
>>  > > >>>
>>  > > >>>   On 27 Jul 2007, at 23:03, Juan Sequeda wrote:
>>  > > >>>
>>  > > >>>>   Hi all
>>  > > >>>>
>>  > > >>>>   I would like to know where I can find the current up-to-date
>>  > > Semantic
>>  > > >>>>   Web layer cake. It seems that [1] is the most used, but is
>> that the
>>  > > >>>>   recent one?
>>  > > >>>>
>>  > > >>>>   Thanks!
>>  > > >>>>
>>  > > >>>>   [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/09/06-ecdl/slide17-0.html
>>  > > >>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 17:05:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:44 UTC