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

For those that haven't seen this one... The link below isn't the W3C layer
cake, but I like how this infographic version separates XML as a one of
many formats and highlights linked data as a simplified subset of
technologies:

http://bnode.org/blog/2009/07/08/the-semantic-web-not-a-piece-of-cake

Cheers,

Nolan

--
Nolan Nichols
Postdoctoral Fellow
Center for Health Sciences, SRI International
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1099-3328

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>>  > > >>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>