- From: Matt Biddulph <matt@picdiary.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:45:04 +0000
- To: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>, Jeen Broekstra <jeen.broekstra@aidministrator.nl>, www-rdf-rules <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>, Steve Cayzer <Steve_Cayzer@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, mb <mb@picdiary.com>
Linkdump: http://www.hackdiary.com/archives/000001.html # marking up RSS with wordnet and friends http://www.hackdiary.com/archives/000009.html # wordnet-based search-engine http://www.hackdiary.com/archives/000010.html # wordnet-based dmoz-style picture browsing http://www.hackdiary.com/cats.html#rdf # related RDF stuff Hope that helps. Cheers, Matt. On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 10:24:34AM +0000, Libby Miller wrote: > yes I really like this idea. I was thinking along these lines because of > a demo that Matt Biddulph has for classifying his photos - although I > can't find the reference - Matt? > > thanks very much Jeen for the clarification. > > Libby > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Danny Ayers wrote: > > > This thread has provided the answer to a problem that I've been mulling over > > for a few weeks ;-) > > > > Some blogging tools (such as Movable Type) allow the user to categorise > > their posts, but the categories used are totally arbitrary, just strings > > decided by the user. To be able to index across systems, some sharing of > > taxonomies would be needed. It occurred to me that a lookup of something > > like Wordnet would allow the mapping of Cats (in Danny's blog) to > > http://whatever/worndet#Cat and thence to Cats (in Libby's blog). So it > > looks like pretty much any of these query tools would be up to the job. The > > next stages are I suppose setting the 'dictionary' up as a service, then > > implementing a user-transparent interface. > > > > Cheers, > > Danny. > > > > > > ----------- > > > > http://dannyayers.com > > > > "The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne." - Chaucer > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org > > >[mailto:www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jeen Broekstra > > >Sent: 21 January 2003 10:27 > > >To: Libby Miller > > >Cc: www-rdf-rules > > >Subject: Re: RDF query testcases? > > > > > > > > > > > >Libby Miller wrote: > > > > > >> this is great, thanks Jeen. > > >> > > >> quick question: Sesame supports RDF schema right? so if I did a query > > >> in RDQL over Sesame over an ontology like Wordnet (e.g. > > >> http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Person) would I get both Person and > > >> Life_form as the classes of an instance of Person? > > > > > >Yes. > > > > > >My RDQL is somewhat shaky, but the query would be something like: > > > > > >SELECT ?c > > >WHERE (?p, <rdf:type>, <wn:Person>), > > > (?p, <rdf:type>, ?c) > > > > > >Right? > > > > > > > What if I did the same query in RQL? > > > > > >The same. In Sesame, the deductive closure is computed independently of > > >the query module, so both RQL and RDQL could retrieve all these answers. > > > > > >The RQL query in this case would be something like: > > > > > >SELECT typeOf( p ) > > >FROM wn:Person { p } > > > > > >The difference is in the fact that RQL can explicitly express certain > > >types of schema semantics in the query, making it possible to express > > >queries about the schema more easily, and sometimes go beyond what's > > >expressible in an RDF-only QL. > > > > > >A simple example of this is direct subclass relations (A is a direct > > >subclass of B iff there is no C: A < C < B): this is a relation that > > >would be rather awkward to express in RDQL, but RQL has a special > > >language feature for it. > > > > > >> I'm asking this because I was asked to recommend a tool that could be > > >> used for querying a fairly simple, heirarchical ontology (actually > > >> more like a thesaurus - MeSH, > > >> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html), such that you could, say, > > >> ask for all research groups with 'abdomen' or anything above it in the > > >> heirarchy as their descriptive keyword. (I'm now also wondering whether > > >> things below it in the heirarchy might be more useful...) > > >> > > >> Does that make any sense? > > > > > >This would be fairly straightforward to express, I imagine, so yes :) > > > > > >Best regards, > > > > > >Jeen > > >-- > > >jeen.broekstra@aidministrator.nl > > >aidministrator nederland bv - http://www.aidministrator.nl/ > > >julianaplein 14b, 3817 cs amersfoort, the netherlands > > >tel. +31-(0)33-4659987, fax. +31-(0)33-4659987 > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 05:51:43 UTC