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

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

From: Bo Ferri <zazi@smiy.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 15:09:22 +0100
To: Nolan Nichols <nolan.nichols@gmail.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Natanael Arndt <arndtn@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56D2FF92.2070000@smiy.org>
Hi all,

for my final thesis I did a revision of Benjamin's one, see

https://smiy.org/2011/01/10/the-common-layered-semantic-web-technology-stack/

... but hey, this is even from 2010/2011* ... :)

Cheers,


Bo


*) i.e. outdated right now


On 2/26/2016 6:59 PM, Nolan Nichols wrote:
> 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 <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 26 February 2016 at 16:55, David Booth <david@dbooth.org
>     <mailto: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
>             <mailto: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 Sunday, 28 February 2016 14:10:09 UTC

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