Re: Feedback

Hi Sebastian,
I have followed this thread for months and you’ve received good feedback from the sem web community. I’m going to give my 2 cents. Your re-written paper, including the abstract, would benefit from a careful review of a resources that discuss Linked Data in the enterprise. 

My experience suggests that many senior scientists or enterprise architects around the world have found the RDF family of standards are the only way they can solve some major distributed data problems. The key characteristics of these projects that benefit from linked data in the enterprise are:  1) benefits from the universality of HTTP URIs; and 2) leverages standard vocabularies for the purpose of re-use, both directly (by the organization itself), and by others (e.g., partners, suppliers, customers, etc.).

I would say that many using linked data in the enterprise did so out of necessity, and further, they didn’t start out as gurus. In many cases they were RDBMS programmers who wanted to incorporate more Web standards into their enterprise.

See W3C Linked Data Platform 1.0  [1], [2]

Also, there is a book called Linking Enteprise Data, (D. Wood, editor, published in 2011). [3]  This book has chapters written by software engineers who were deploying major linked data projects over 5 years ago. You can read all the chapters of this book for free.[3], [4] 

Since then, many more enterprises worldwide have adopted linked data for interoperability of systems. These are top 100 companies in Europe and the U.S. There may be many more in other parts of the world. Thus, the first statement in your abstract: "As far as I know, RDF / RDF(S) or OWL are not currently widely adopted in the enterprise” would be unlikely to pass peer review. 

Many on this list can & will tell you that RDF has been adopted on large projects, as well as, on the Web by leading search engines, government agencies, etc.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Bernadette Hyland
3 Round Stones, Inc.

bhyland@3roundstones.com  || Twitter @BernHyland

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/>

[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-primer/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-primer/>

[3] http://linkeddatadeveloper.com/Projects/Linking-Enterprise-Data/Manuscript/led-contents.html <http://linkeddatadeveloper.com/Projects/Linking-Enterprise-Data/Manuscript/led-contents.html>

[4] http://linkeddatadeveloper.com/Projects/Linking-Enterprise-Data/index.xhtml?view <http://linkeddatadeveloper.com/Projects/Linking-Enterprise-Data/index.xhtml?view>

> On Nov 26, 2016, at 16:08, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> William, I've followed your advice and did a (practically) full rewrite of my document. Hope it is more readable. Thanks for all your time and patience. As a developer, I'm not good at writing documents.. Regards,
> 
> Sebastián.
> 
> On Nov 23, 2016 2:53 PM, "William Van Woensel" <William.Van.Woensel@dal.ca <mailto:William.Van.Woensel@dal.ca>> wrote:
> Sebastian,
> 
>  
> 
> I think I am not alone in saying that we’ve tried to make sense of your document, and have provided all the help we can. I am certainly not claiming that your work does not have merit (far from it!), but as mentioned by myself, Martynas and Juan, try to clarify your rationale and general solution first (What is the problem? Why does existing work not do a good job of tackling it? Why does your solution work better?). The fact that at least three people, with different backgrounds and from different parts of the world, have asked for these kinds of clarifications (on multiple occasions!) should be a clear signal. Currently, the document doesn’t answer these questions; and answers to our questions are just as unclear.
> 
>  
> 
> I am not trying to dissuade you from using the mailing lists, but you’ve presented us with essentially the same document for a number of months now without any apparent progress, despite the multiple requests and suggestions from mailing list recipients. We seem to not be getting anywhere.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> William
> 
>  
> 
> From: Sebastian Samaruga [mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com <mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com>] 
> Sent: November-23-16 1:26 PM
> To: William Van Woensel <William.Van.Woensel@Dal.Ca>
> Cc: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>>; semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>; public-rww <public-rww@w3.org <mailto:public-rww@w3.org>>; Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com <mailto:juanfederico@gmail.com>>; ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com <mailto:metadataportals@yahoo.com>>
> Subject: RE: Feedback
> 
>  
> 
> William,
> 
> All sets resources are 'reified' statements about the entity they represent (ie.: quads for SPOs, Kinds and Triples).
> 
> Kinds are a special type of resource (statement) which have, for a subject kind example, a predicate and a value extracted from subject's triple occurrences. So they can play, for example, predicate and object roles in sets.
> 
> Kinds are extracted from source triples and instantiated into new resources (statements) with class and metaclass metadata in their statement context (metaclass URI) and in their statement subject (class URI, subject kind example). Then, kinds may be reified into their corresponding SPOs and evaluated as classes/metaclasses definition by intention.
> 
> For the last question I think I'll be able to encode much more metadata this way without resorting to constructs external to the ontology and do this augmenting existing resources by reification. The main goal would be to develop an 'algebraic' form of inference, reasoning, extraction and transformation of entities in the knowledge base..
> 
> Regards,
> Sebastián.
> 
> Google Doc (comments welcome):
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mJbhTJSi907vrXfMtKly5biAMnoZJ5T-KziaIMIELuM/edit?usp=drive_web <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mJbhTJSi907vrXfMtKly5biAMnoZJ5T-KziaIMIELuM/edit?usp=drive_web>
>  
> 
> On Nov 22, 2016 3:25 PM, "William Van Woensel" <William.Van.Woensel@dal.ca <mailto:William.Van.Woensel@dal.ca>> wrote:
> 
> Resources may have multiple occurrences, as subjects, predicates and objects. Regarding Kinds, for example for a given Subject, it SubjectKinds will be the set of all Predicate attributes and Object values according their occurrences in triples where there is that Subject (the set with kinds attrs/values intersection is populated from source triples correspondingly). Then aggregation is done for class / metaclass inference.
> 
> I see. This may be the first intelligible explanation about “kinds” that I’ve read (well, aside from the part in parenthesis, and what follows). Regardless, the venn-diagram still seems inaccurate, since it indicates that subject-kinds include all resources occurring both as predicates and objects – not the set of all predicate attributes and object values occurring in triples with a particular subject. 
> 
> To avoid burdening the mailing lists I stand by my previous suggestion:
> 
> I would separate out this aspect and start from scratch to 1) indicate what they precisely represent (no wishy-washy statements, but rather concretely and formally define them), and 2) explain the need for them, i.e., why they would be a useful addition to meta-vocabularies such as RDF(S)/OWL.
> 
> A complete rewrite, focusing on one aspect at a time, could be of great benefit.
> 
>  
> 
> William
> 
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Martynas Jusevičius [mailto:martynas@graphity.org <mailto:martynas@graphity.org>] 
> > > Sent: November-21-16 8:17 PM
> > > To: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com <mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com>>
> > > Cc: pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de <mailto:pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de>; Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com <mailto:juanfederico@gmail.com>>; ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com <mailto:metadataportals@yahoo.com>>; Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>>; public-rww <public-rww@w3.org <mailto:public-rww@w3..org>>
> > > Subject: Re: Feedback
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Sebastian,
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > please name actual datasources (Wikidata, UniProt, whatever), vocabularies/ontologies (schema.org <http://schema.org/>, Data Cube, etc.), data formats (XML, CSV) that you want to use, and most importantly -- for what specific purpose?
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Right now your document is so abstract it is incomprehensible and not implementable.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Martynas
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com <mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all, in response to Timothy's request I'll try to describe real
> > >
> > > > world problems / use cases I'm trying to solve: As the project I'd
> > >
> > > > like to be realized in this endeavor is a general purpose (knowledge
> > >
> > > > enabled) database back end with special features, use cases and
> > >
> > > > problems may be the same of the ones solved by traditional databases
> > >
> > > > but with semantic back end and special features provided benefits. So,
> > >
> > > > it will not do much by itself but to provide the means of higher
> > >
> > > > application / presentation layers taking advantage of such approaches.
> > >
> > > > 
> > >
> > > > As the document I'm posting is kind of illegible stuff, I believe
> > >
> > > > sharing its link for comments will be of great help for me when
> > >
> > > > dumping my thoughts on the keyboard given useful advice is provided for making things clearer.
> > >
> > > > Here is the Google Docs link (anyone can comment):
> > >
> > > > 
> > >
> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mJbhTJSi907vrXfMtKly5biAMnoZJ5T-Kz <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mJbhTJSi907vrXfMtKly5biAMnoZJ5T-Kz>
> > >
> > > > iaIMIELuM/edit?usp=drive_web
> > >
> > > > 
> > >
> > > > Please be patient. I have this bunch of ideas, all low level, protocol
> > >
> > > > like (nothing like an 'application'), for back end and infrastructure
> > >
> > > > of concrete semantic applications. Maybe not even a little part of all
> > >
> > > > the document is worth reading material or is not well written. What
> > >
> > > > I'd like is finally get to communicate my concepts to see if it is worth coding a 'proof of concept'
> > >
> > > > of this 'semantic services database'. The reason I'm so insistent in
> > >
> > > > having this feedback and potential consumers before I do some code is
> > >
> > > > that I've made so many attempts before by myself and I didn't get to nothing alone.
> > >
> > > > 
> > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > > Sebastián.
> > >
> > > > 
> > >
> > > > 
> > >
> > > > On Nov 19, 2016 7:58 PM, "Sebastian Samaruga" <ssamarug@gmail.com <mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> Trying to follow your advice I've added a Scope section at the
> > >
> > > >> beginning of the document. The reason why I've found so difficult to
> > >
> > > >> describe this 'application' is that it is not an application but it
> > >
> > > >> is more like a kind of
> > >
> > > >> (knowledge) backend database where (augmented) RDF and metamodels are
> > >
> > > >> my 'relational' model. I don't know if exists some kind of 'relational algebra'
> > >
> > > >> for RDF so I started writing my own. Please tell me if I'm missing
> > >
> > > >> something important.
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> Regards,
> > >
> > > >> Sebastián.
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> On Nov 17, 2016 1:05 AM, "Juan Sequeda" <juanfederico@gmail.com <mailto:juanfederico@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> Sebastian,
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> Writing advice I got early on:
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> - First write an abstract. If you can't summarize in a few sentences
> > >
> > > >> what you are doing, then it is going to be very hard for other to
> > >
> > > >> understand
> > >
> > > >> - From the abstract, the following should be apparent
> > >
> > > >> 1) What is the problem
> > >
> > > >> 2) Why is it important (i.e. motivation)
> > >
> > > >> 3) What is your contribution (what is unique/novel)
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> Your introduction should dive into a bit more detail on this.
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> You should be answer each of these questions in a succinct and crisp
> > >
> > > >> sentence.
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> --
> > >
> > > >> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
> > >
> > > >> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> > >
> > > >> www.juansequeda.com <http://www.juansequeda.com/>
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Sebastian Samaruga
> > >
> > > >> <ssamarug@gmail.com <mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com>>
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> 
> > >
> > > >>> Hi all, its me again. I'm looking for feedback in this analysis
> > >
> > > >>> phase of a project I'd like to start building soon. The reason I
> > >
> > > >>> post this draft document again is that I've made some changes. I'd
> > >
> > > >>> like to have some orientation in the right directions I should take.
> > >
> > > >>> I hope not to be boring someone but 'cos what I'd like is to build
> > >
> > > >>> kind of augmented ontologies and metamodels, seems like no one is willing to share this approach with me.
> > >
> > > >>> 
> > >
> > > >>> Sorry if the document is a little rough written. I've wrote it all
> > >
> > > >>> on a phone...
> > >
> > > >>> 
> > >
> > > >>> Best Regards,
> > >
> > > >>> Sebastián.
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > >> 
> > >
> > > > 
> > >
> > >  
> 
> <Datastore.pdf>