Comments for inkdroid http://inkdroid.org/journal $pithy_personal_mission_statement Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:04:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on skos as atom by Reading List : Web, Linked Data, REST, Semantic Web – webr3.org http://inkdroid.org/journal/2009/11/04/skos-as-atom/comment-page-1/#comment-82102 Reading List : Web, Linked Data, REST, Semantic Web – webr3.org Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:04:23 +0000 http://inkdroid.org/journal/?p=1398#comment-82102 [...] skos as atom [...] [...] skos as atom [...]

]]> Comment on full link graph? by ed http://inkdroid.org/journal/2010/03/03/full-link-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-82017 ed Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:53:28 +0000 http://inkdroid.org/journal/?p=1798#comment-82017 Thanks Michael, I fixed the YouTube link. Apologies for the mis-information in my post. It would still be interesting to know if their <em>full link graph</em> supported different edge types. But I guess even if they are doing computations over a graph of nodes identified w/ URLs and linked together with different predicates that still wouldn't be RDF, SPARQL and consequently Linked Data... hohum Thanks Michael, I fixed the YouTube link. Apologies for the mis-information in my post. It would still be interesting to know if their full link graph supported different edge types. But I guess even if they are doing computations over a graph of nodes identified w/ URLs and linked together with different predicates that still wouldn’t be RDF, SPARQL and consequently Linked Data… hohum

]]> Comment on full link graph? by Michael Hausenblas http://inkdroid.org/journal/2010/03/03/full-link-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-82016 Michael Hausenblas Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:09:59 +0000 http://inkdroid.org/journal/?p=1798#comment-82016 Nice one, but I doubt he really was referring to Linked Data. Rather what Dave mentioned [1]? Minor nit: the youtube link you provided doesn't really work (ie. it doesn't jump to the 25min 38s). The correct syntax would be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE7k0_9k0VA#t=25m38s Cheers, Michael [1] http://twitter.com/der42/status/9922707578 Nice one, but I doubt he really was referring to Linked Data. Rather what Dave mentioned [1]?

Minor nit: the youtube link you provided doesn’t really work (ie. it doesn’t jump to the 25min 38s). The correct syntax would be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE7k0_9k0VA#t=25m38s

Cheers,
Michael

[1] http://twitter.com/der42/status/9922707578

]]> Comment on a middle way for linked data at the bbc by Apis and APIS a wildlife ontology « Derivadow.com http://inkdroid.org/journal/2010/03/02/a-middle-way-for-linked-data-at-the-bbc/comment-page-1/#comment-82000 Apis and APIS a wildlife ontology « Derivadow.com Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:36:04 +0000 http://inkdroid.org/journal/?p=1701#comment-82000 [...] Finder – how we’re starting to publish and consume data on the web. Ed Summers has a great write up of what we’re doing I’ve also published my slides [...] [...] Finder – how we’re starting to publish and consume data on the web. Ed Summers has a great write up of what we’re doing I’ve also published my slides [...]

]]> Comment on About by Dev8D | nostuff.org http://inkdroid.org/journal/about/comment-page-1/#comment-81964 Dev8D | nostuff.org Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:13:07 +0000 http://inkdroid.org/journal/?page_id=222#comment-81964 [...] example of 45 minutes: On seeing a tweet saying Ed Summers (LCSH Linked Data fame) was starting his expert talk for 15 minutes I went running in to that room [...] [...] example of 45 minutes: On seeing a tweet saying Ed Summers (LCSH Linked Data fame) was starting his expert talk for 15 minutes I went running in to that room [...]

]]> Comment on web documents and axioms for linked data by jakoblog.de/ http://inkdroid.org/journal/2010/02/22/web-documents-and-axioms-for-linked-data/comment-page-1/#comment-81900 jakoblog.de/ Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:13:16 +0000 http://inkdroid.org/journal/?p=1676#comment-81900 Thanks for the summary! I read the whole thread and also <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Aug/0000.html" rel="nofollow">Tim Berners-Lee's historical explanation</a> how the term Resource slipped into the specifications. However "Web Document" is not much better than "Information Resource" and I disagree that only any of both can have representations. You can create byte streams to represent anything, a newspaper, a cat, or an HTML document. The question is only whether the representation is appropriate in a given context. But this question cannot be answered by technical architectures or axioms only. It always depends on. Funny how Semantic Web believers seem to think that you only need more standards and levels of abstraction to finally get rid of this fuzzy nasty human common sense that has less problems to handle with uncertain and contradicting information :-) Thanks for the summary! I read the whole thread and also Tim Berners-Lee’s historical explanation how the term Resource slipped into the specifications. However “Web Document” is not much better than “Information Resource” and I disagree that only any of both can have representations. You can create byte streams to represent anything, a newspaper, a cat, or an HTML document. The question is only whether the representation is appropriate in a given context. But this question cannot be answered by technical architectures or axioms only. It always depends on. Funny how Semantic Web believers seem to think that you only need more standards and levels of abstraction to finally get rid of this fuzzy nasty human common sense that has less problems to handle with uncertain and contradicting information :-)

]]> Comment on web documents and axioms for linked data by bibwild.wordpress.com/ http://inkdroid.org/journal/2010/02/22/web-documents-and-axioms-for-linked-data/comment-page-1/#comment-81899 bibwild.wordpress.com/ Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:42:49 +0000 http://inkdroid.org/journal/?p=1676#comment-81899 This makes a hell of a lot of sense. --jrochkind This makes a hell of a lot of sense.

–jrochkind

]]> Comment on web documents and axioms for linked data by pkeane.livejournal.com/ http://inkdroid.org/journal/2010/02/22/web-documents-and-axioms-for-linked-data/comment-page-1/#comment-81898 pkeane.livejournal.com/ Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:16:20 +0000 http://inkdroid.org/journal/?p=1676#comment-81898 Good stuff, Ed. I am struck yet again, though, at the discordance between the Linked Data and REST worldviews. I think a REST-based rejoinder to the last quote would state that building a system that made the distinction too finely would be brittle (cf. http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/resource-resource-wherefore-art-thou-resource ). My own take is that we are talking about two different kinds of architecture/approaches: Linked Data is concerned w/ compile time whereas REST is concerned w/ runtime. Put another way, linked data is strongly and statically typed and REST is weakly and dynamically typed. Not sure how useful that metaphor is, but it seems to me to help distinguish systems that will fit well into the Linked Data approach (e.g. , LCSH) and those that might not. I'm also struck that the two worldviews will continue to be at odds (there are essential differences), but that both will likely figure into the future of the web. Good stuff, Ed. I am struck yet again, though, at the discordance between the Linked Data and REST worldviews. I think a REST-based rejoinder to the last quote would state that building a system that made the distinction too finely would be brittle (cf. http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/resource-resource-wherefore-art-thou-resource ).

My own take is that we are talking about two different kinds of architecture/approaches: Linked Data is concerned w/ compile time whereas REST is concerned w/ runtime. Put another way, linked data is strongly and statically typed and REST is weakly and dynamically typed. Not sure how useful that metaphor is, but it seems to me to help distinguish systems that will fit well into the Linked Data approach (e.g. , LCSH) and those that might not.

I’m also struck that the two worldviews will continue to be at odds (there are essential differences), but that both will likely figure into the future of the web.

]]> Comment on web documents and axioms for linked data by Andrew Ashton http://inkdroid.org/journal/2010/02/22/web-documents-and-axioms-for-linked-data/comment-page-1/#comment-81894 Andrew Ashton Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:10:10 +0000 http://inkdroid.org/journal/?p=1676#comment-81894 I work a lot with TEI documents, though I don’t consider myself an expert or a zealot in that arena. Your mention of the idea of web documents vs. non-web documents crystallizes a lot of tensions that have been floating around as I try to grok working with TEI in an RDF/OWL/LinkedData environment. My impression is that discussions about XML docs & related technologies are running along a parallel, but rarely converging, track with discussions about “web” documents. Philosophically, there is a big difference between the purity of the RDF/Linked Data world and the comparatively procedural XML world. But I keep finding that I wish I had a better strategy for reconciling the two. So it raises the question: how do “web documents” express, or at least point to, the kind of semantic nuance that we can express in a single non-web document. What sort of mechanism resolves a semantic concept expressed in TEI (for example) to a referenceable resource? I’m not aware of any XML-native technologies (e.g. Xpointer) that are really suited to this. It seems we’re stuck with creating RDF representations of semantic encoding within documents, but that level of abstraction is invariably going to introduce more noise into the already-noisy practice of text-encoding. I’m just curious what ideas are out there for reconciling these technologies – or have all the Linked Data community given up on XML? I work a lot with TEI documents, though I don’t consider myself an expert or a zealot in that arena. Your mention of the idea of web documents vs. non-web documents crystallizes a lot of tensions that have been floating around as I try to grok working with TEI in an RDF/OWL/LinkedData environment.

My impression is that discussions about XML docs & related technologies are running along a parallel, but rarely converging, track with discussions about “web” documents. Philosophically, there is a big difference between the purity of the RDF/Linked Data world and the comparatively procedural XML world. But I keep finding that I wish I had a better strategy for reconciling the two.

So it raises the question: how do “web documents” express, or at least point to, the kind of semantic nuance that we can express in a single non-web document. What sort of mechanism resolves a semantic concept expressed in TEI (for example) to a referenceable resource? I’m not aware of any XML-native technologies (e.g. Xpointer) that are really suited to this. It seems we’re stuck with creating RDF representations of semantic encoding within documents, but that level of abstraction is invariably going to introduce more noise into the already-noisy practice of text-encoding. I’m just curious what ideas are out there for reconciling these technologies – or have all the Linked Data community given up on XML?

]]> Comment on rest, the semantic web and my feeble brain by inkdroid › web documents and axioms for linked data http://inkdroid.org/journal/2009/05/14/rest-the-semantic-web-and-my-feeble-brain/comment-page-1/#comment-81887 inkdroid › web documents and axioms for linked data Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:06:53 +0000 http://inkdroid.org/journal/?p=974#comment-81887 [...] email exchange with Richard Cyganiak (one of the architects of the Linked Data pattern) about some trouble I’ve had understanding what Information Resources and Documents are in the context of [...] [...] email exchange with Richard Cyganiak (one of the architects of the Linked Data pattern) about some trouble I’ve had understanding what Information Resources and Documents are in the context of [...]

]]>