Re: Ideas for a possible framework

Cross posting makes it difficult.  A Smart woman said to me today "There is
no such thing as a bad idea … ever. There are just ideas in context."

I suggest the RWW group may be best suited to what you're trying to work
on, but I could be wrong.

My First suggestion is to author the vocab / ontology for your idea.  I
suspect this may be a positive step forward in that you'd then be able to
write documents that use your ontology to form some sort of view.

Would a sparql plugin for WordPress provide you assistance in modelling
your ideas in code?

You'll find an array of relevant tools here:
https://profiles.wordpress.org/shawfactor/#content-plugins

Another facet that may be worth documenting is the means in which linked
data is already used on the web. this may in-turn assist your audience with
context.

Tim.h.


On Sun., 30 Oct. 2016, 10:24 am Sebastian Samaruga, <ssamarug@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sorry for being so insistent. Feedback is valuable 'cos I tend to reinvent
> the wheel. I agree that RDF/OWL are enough powerful and vast technologies
> by themselves. I don't want to reinvent them. I've updated the draft I'm
> publishing with my thoughts as an attachment hoping is more clear than the
> previous (was not as clear as I wanted).
>
> To put it on one statement: I want to generate RDF/OWL from diverse
> datasources, augment it with knowledge and make it available through a set
> of APIs/protocols, all this leveraging what existing semantic web
> frameworks can provide.
>
> Hope not being bothering anyone with so many drafts. Best,
>
> Sebastián.
>
> On Oct 1, 2016 9:15 AM, "Martynas Jusevičius" <martynas@graphity.org>
> wrote:
>
> Sebastian,
>
> I've said this before and I'll say it again: why do you need to build
> a (meta)model above RDF? Kind, SubjectKind, Dimension etc. -- why is
> all this stuff necessary?
>
> Do not attempt to extend RDF, and drop the UML/object-oriented models.
> Instead, work *within* RDF: use triples to store data, and use OWL
> ontologies, classes, properties, datatypes etc. to model your domain.
>
> Those are the only things you need. Show us your ontologies, then you
> will get better responses. You can try some of these ontology editors:
> http://protege.stanford.edu/
> http://www.cognitum.eu/semantics/FluentEditor/
>
> http://www.topquadrant.com/tools/modeling-topbraid-composer-standard-edition/
>
>
> Martynas
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > (Apologies for cross posting / over posting)
> >
> > Hi, I'm currently a software student and developer. Since I've meet
> semantic
> > related technologies development about twelve years ago I've been
> revolving
> > with the idea that a framework could be built that could ease building
> > semantic business applications as they are frameworks for Java and
> > relational databases.
> >
> > A lot of time passed. Now many big players offer solutions that somehow
> rely
> > on semantics for their work. And although this could seem strange, here
> in
> > Buenos Aires I couldn't find anyone really interested in the area, being
> in
> > academia or places I've worked in.
> >
> > So, having no one to share my thoughts with, I'm frequently publishing
> > documents to this list(s) hoping for some kind of peer's feedback. Sorry
> if
> > this aren't the right lists or I'm off topic. I send my attachment as a
> PDF
> > document. Anyone willing to comment in the original just ask me for the
> > Google Docs link.
> >
> > Note: I've sent this draft before but in a very early version state. I
> > invite anyone interested in reading to see the last section (Dashboards).
> > Maybe I'm wrong but I think there is a lot of innovation that may be done
> > regarding that subject (sorry for the poor diagrams :--)
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Sebastián Samaruga.
>
>