- 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>
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 :) Cheers, Bo *) i.e. outdated right now On 2/26/2016 6:59 PM, Nolan Nichols wrote: 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