Available formats: content-negotiated html turtle (see SIOC for the vocabulary)
Back to channel and daily index: content-negotiated html turtle
These logs are provided as an experiment in indexing discussions using IRCHub.py, Irc2RDF.hs, and SIOC.
| 02:21:37 | <drobilla> | anyone know of a simple geometric coordinate ontology? (I just need to specify x/y coordinates on a canvas) |
| 03:44:16 | <drewp> | drobilla: i'm using http://fabl.net/vocabularies/geometry2d/1.1/ |
| 04:51:40 | <drewp> | what's sparql for "?x that are of class1 but not of class2" (or should i model this a different way?) |
| 04:53:58 | <drewp> | i want to mark some of my nodes as test records, so they're always as good as records but they don't show up in "all record" results on the production site |
| 04:54:30 | <drewp> | i tried ":x a :Record, :TestRecord" but i guess i could use ":x a :Record; :forTesting true" |
| 04:57:33 | <drewp> | http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200507/booleans_suck.html |
| 04:58:43 | <LeeF> | the SPARQL for it is kind of ugly (the new SPARQL WG will hopefully be improving this). it looks like: |
| 04:58:49 | <LeeF> | SELECT ?x { |
| 04:59:06 | <LeeF> | ?x a ex:GoodClass . |
| 04:59:13 | <LeeF> | OPTIONAL { |
| 04:59:20 | <LeeF> | ?y a ex:EvilClass . |
| 04:59:27 | <LeeF> | FILTER(?x = ?y) . |
| 04:59:30 | <LeeF> | } |
| 04:59:35 | <LeeF> | FILTER(!bound(?y)) |
| 04:59:37 | <LeeF> | } |
| 04:59:41 | <drewp> | yow |
| 04:59:45 | <LeeF> | yeah, exactly |
| 05:00:24 | <drewp> | well it's all up to me. ":x :forTesting true" seems a bit nicer, but i don't want to put :forTesting false on all the production ones |
| 05:00:34 | <drewp> | so i have a similarly difficult thing to filter for |
| 05:00:44 | <LeeF> | yeah, it's pretty.... painful |
| 05:01:13 | <LeeF> | the new approach will look something like (design still very much in flux) |
| 05:01:15 | <LeeF> | SELECT ?x { |
| 05:01:20 | <LeeF> | ?x a ex:GoodClass . |
| 05:01:28 | <LeeF> | NOT EXISTS { ?x a ex:EvilClass } |
| 05:01:29 | <LeeF> | } |
| 05:01:35 | <drewp> | perhaps i shuold consider it from the one query that's hard: "find all the production resources" .. and just put a :ProdResource on all the prod ones |
| 05:02:02 | <LeeF> | what SPARQL engine are you using, drewp? some of them have extensions that make this less painful |
| 05:02:18 | <drewp> | is NOT EXISTS a single operator, in that design? i.e. there aren't other combos of NOT and EXISTS? |
| 05:02:21 | <drewp> | i'm on sesame |
| 05:03:09 | <LeeF> | (don't think sesame has an extension, but i'm not certain) |
| 05:03:35 | <drewp> | i think i'll go with ":x a :Resource, :ProdResource" since it's totally simple, and if i miss the ProdResource it should show up fast as a bug |
| 05:03:36 | <LeeF> | there are multiple designs - in some of them "NOT EXISTS" is a single operator, in others there's also an EXISTS form for symmetry, and in some the whole thing is part of a FILTER |
| 05:03:45 | <drewp> | as opposed to messing up the test ones and having them appear on the live site |
| 05:03:45 | <LeeF> | totally simple++ |
| 05:04:06 | <drewp> | EXISTS { ... } is just the same as ... , right? |
| 05:58:47 | <mhausenblas> | good morning Web of Data |
| 06:46:49 | <mhausenblas> | ouch. ISWC09 abstract deadline is now one week earlier |
| 06:50:34 | <mhausenblas> | LeeF? |
| 06:50:55 | <mhausenblas> | is the in-use abstract deadline now also one week earlier? |
| 06:52:08 | <mhausenblas> | ACTION confused - seems a bit messy (also the email today with the subject '... Call for Papers - Abstracts due on August 8' and then obviously pointing out June 8 ;) |
| 06:58:05 | <mhausenblas> | LeeF__? |
| 08:29:11 | <mhausenblas> | http://web20blog.org/2009/05/26/a-step-toward-data-interoperability-linked-data-databases-and-avoiding-the-security-headache/ |
| 08:29:25 | <mhausenblas> | B:| A Step toward Data Interoperability? Linked Data, Databases and avoiding the security headache |
| 08:29:40 | <mhausenblas> | B: blog post by Ken Fischer. interesting |
| 10:50:22 | <enjayhch> | hello |
| 10:50:52 | <enjayhch> | should rapper be able to parse blank nodes in turtle? |
| 10:51:33 | <enjayhch> | like example 6: http://www.w3.org/2007/02/turtle/primer/#example6 |
| 10:52:34 | <shellac> | enjayhch: most definitely |
| 10:53:39 | <shellac> | they share an author / editor |
| 10:55:57 | <shellac> | oh, that example contains a typo. are you seeing "The namespace prefix in "exterm:editor" was not declared." |
| 10:57:19 | <shellac> | oh, and another one. trailing '.' after <http://purl.org/net/dajobe/> |
| 11:02:15 | <shellac> | (jena agrees with rapper, btw) |
| 11:22:59 | <enjayhch> | shellac: thanks - I noticed the namespace prefix typo, but not the trailing '.' |
| 11:23:06 | <enjayhch> | ACTION tries again |
| 11:23:24 | <shellac> | I've emailed the editors |
| 11:24:23 | <enjayhch> | yay, working |
| 11:24:34 | <enjayhch> | thanks shellac :) |
| 11:26:48 | <tobyink> | http://buzzword.org.uk/2009/ttldent/spec |
| 11:27:05 | <tobyink> | C:|ttldent - an RDF serialisation for microblogging |
| 11:27:16 | <tobyink> | C: Yes, I don't deny it's a crazy idea. |
| 11:27:34 | <tobyink> | C: Example input - http://identi.ca/notice/4621236 |
| 11:27:50 | <tobyink> | C: Output of example - http://buzzword.org.uk/2009/ttldent/implementation.cgi?acct=tobyink¬ice=4621236&format=text/turtle |
| 11:29:46 | <tobyink> | C2: Example input - [http://identi.ca/notice/4621236] |
| 11:30:10 | <tobyink> | C3: Output of example - [http://buzzword.org.uk/2009/ttldent/implementation.cgi?acct=tobyink¬ice=4621236&format=text/turtle] |
| 11:31:07 | <mhausenblas> | ACTION notes that he doesn't think that this is a crazy idea, tobyink, otherwise the project proposal we recently submitted would also fall into that category ;) |
| 11:31:53 | <mhausenblas> | and, tobyink, others also don't think it's crazy: http://twitterdata.org/ |
| 11:31:56 | <mhausenblas> | http://twitterdata.org/ |
| 11:32:11 | <mhausenblas> | D:| Twitter Data - a simple, open proposal for embedding data in Twitter messages |
| 11:32:17 | <mhausenblas> | ok? ;) |
| 11:34:22 | <tobyink> | Hmmm... looks interesting. |
| 11:35:16 | <tobyink> | You might notice the Turtle syntax used in ttldent is somewhat different to normal turtle. e.g. it embraces hashtags. |
| 11:36:13 | <mhausenblas> | yes |
| 11:36:47 | <tobyink> | Also there are a few shortcuts available to help keep things under 140 characters. |
| 11:38:37 | <tobyink> | This comes at a cost though - you need to have context information when parsing the message to make sense of it. e.g. <@foo> refers to the foaf:Person who holds account "foo", but you need context to figure out on what server that person holds their account. |
| 11:39:47 | <mhausenblas> | tobyink: you know http://webofdata.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/microblogging-linked-data-in-disguise/ right? |
| 11:40:07 | <mhausenblas> | there are basically two approaches to it: |
| 11:41:00 | <mhausenblas> | IMO you can do it bottom up (that is, sending structured messages, like you do) or top down, that is extracting the data via NLP from the posts |
| 11:41:20 | <mhausenblas> | ACTION BIAB - TTYL, tobyink |
| 11:44:43 | <tobyink> | cygri: You might be interested in http://buzzword.org.uk/2009/ttldent/spec too - it uses prefix.cc as a resolution mechanism for unrecognised CURIE prefixes. |
| 11:50:37 | <cygri> | tobyink: interesting. cheers! reminds me i have to sink some cycles into prefix.cc to fix a few bugs :-) |
| 11:54:45 | <cygri> | #ttl <#me> cyc:temporalRelationshipCommencingNow dbr:Lunch |
| 11:55:28 | <tobyink> | Awesome - I hadn't thought of IRC logs as an application for it. |
| 12:32:22 | <tobyink> | cygri: re prefix.cc changes - feature request: <http://prefix.cc/all-vann.ttl> should return a turtle file listing all your known prefixes in the format: [] vann:preferredNamespaceUri <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> ; vann:preferredNamespacePrefix "dcterms" . |
| 12:35:53 | <cygri> | tobyink, i suppose you're not happy with http://prefix.cc/vann.ttl.plain ? |
| 12:36:23 | <cygri> | oh wait tobyink, i misunderstood |
| 12:37:48 | <tobyink> | It should be like <http://prefix.cc/popular/all.ttl.plain> but using bnodes + vann vocab to describe the prefixes instead of @prefix. |
| 12:39:07 | <cygri> | tobyink, how about this: http://srv.buzzword.org.uk/turtle/prefix.cc/popular/all |
| 12:40:18 | <tobyink> | I hadn't spotted that the pages used RDFa. Now I feel sheepish! |
| 12:42:34 | <cygri> | tobyink, yeah the best place to hide some RDF is IN PLAIN VIEW ;-) |
| 12:43:38 | <cygri> | the rdfa still needs some love, and probably some direct turtle+rdfxml output makes sense... also, the "popular" section is not the most obvious place to look for "all" prefixes... |
| 12:57:32 | <gromgull> | Does anyone know of a tool for doing skos -> graphviz dot files? |
| 13:03:12 | <tobyink> | gromgull: rapper may well be your friend. |
| 13:04:06 | <tobyink> | It can do RDF -> GraphViz (though it doesn't have any specific SKOS support). |
| 13:09:34 | <gromgull> | hmm - but I don't want the RDF graph - i want the SKOS hierarhcy |
| 13:10:59 | <shellac> | trim it a bit (try a CONSTRUCT) then do the rdf -> graphviz thing |
| 13:33:13 | <Shepard> | gromgull: the DOT format isn't too complicated, it didn't take me long to write a serialiser for it for Sesame. shouldn't be too complicated to do this for SKOS |
| 14:10:31 | <gromgull> | Shepard, shellac: I guess a tiny bit of python and rdflib it should be ther |
| 14:13:05 | <shellac> | yep, whatever your comfortable with. dot is very simple |
| 14:13:14 | <shellac> | s/your/you're/ |
| 14:15:22 | <shellac> | I nearly tried it in xslt, but realised I have actual work to get on with |
| 14:17:09 | <mhausenblas> | gromgull: will you be at ESWC09? |
| 14:20:15 | <gromgull> | mhausenblas: i will! |
| 14:24:11 | <mhausenblas> | ACTION un-registers |
| 14:24:13 | <mhausenblas> | :) |
| 14:24:39 | <mhausenblas> | nah, just kidding - actually looking forward seeing you (again ;) |
| 14:25:31 | <gromgull> | :) |
| 14:31:07 | <mhausenblas> | hehe, yes this is what can happen if we blindly trust 'the machines': |
| 14:31:08 | <mhausenblas> | http://revealingerrors.com/apostates |
| 14:31:30 | <mhausenblas> | (btw, one of the great sites which bring it to the point) |
| 14:32:04 | <mhausenblas> | E:| Quorum of the Twelve Apostates |
| 14:32:35 | <mhausenblas> | E: spell checker introduced typo with quite some consequences ;) |
| 14:50:51 | <PovAddict> | more like: idiots introduce typo using a spellchecker |
| 14:51:26 | <PovAddict> | the first thing we do is assign blame, and blaming it on the tools is quite common |
| 14:52:42 | <mhausenblas> | PovAddict: if you explore revealingerrors.com a bit, it's not always that easy ;) |
| 14:53:03 | <PovAddict> | the first thing we do is assign blame, and blaming it on the tools is quite commonchat_summary |
| 14:53:30 | <PovAddict> | ugh |
| 14:54:00 | <PovAddict> | I hate IRCing by sshing from my ipod to my computer... mobileterminal sucks |
| 14:54:29 | <PovAddict> | ... |
| 14:54:52 | <PovAddict> | yes I just blamed my tools I'm an hypocrite |
| 15:01:46 | <mhausenblas> | hehe |
| 15:08:28 | <fgiasson> | mhausenblas: I would suggest *not to* re-use dcterms:isPartOf to link a resource to its dataset, but to create a Void property of its own |
| 15:09:13 | <fgiasson> | (for void v2?) |
| 15:09:32 | <gromgull> | Behold! Skos2dot http://pastebin.ca/1436341 |
| 15:09:45 | <tobyink> | fgiasson: agreed. :England dc:isPartOf :UK , :Europe , :World . :England dc:isPartOf :dodgyDavesListOfCountries ? |
| 15:11:09 | <fgiasson> | tobyink: this is not the real problem I think. It is when you start using isPartOf for different purposes. Then you application has to do much more processing to figure out how the property isPartOf is used in a certain context |
| 15:11:34 | <fgiasson> | for example: you have a bibo:Article which is a part of a bibo:Collection, and a void:Dataset |
| 15:12:02 | <fgiasson> | an application will manage the isPartOf a bibo:Collection differently than with a void:Dataset |
| 15:12:42 | <fgiasson> | so, to figure out what is what, you have to check the type of objects of these properties (additional processing time) |
| 15:13:43 | <fgiasson> | when I think it would make sense that Void describe all its own properties related to dataset (I am not sure it is a good thing to reuse external properties in the usecase of Void). But I would possibly create sub properties relationship with these external properties |
| 15:13:54 | <tobyink> | isIncludedInSet and isPartOf are different sorts of relationship, even if in English the words we use to describe the relationships are similar |
| 15:14:56 | <fgiasson> | where isIncludedInSet come from? |
| 15:15:07 | <fgiasson> | well, it can be void:isPartOf |
| 15:15:19 | <tobyink> | From my head, |
| 15:15:24 | <fgiasson> | the point is *not to* reuse dcterms:isPartOf :) |
| 15:15:37 | <fgiasson> | ok, because it is not currently in the usage guide |
| 15:15:47 | <tobyink> | It wouldn't be. |
| 15:21:09 | <tobyink> | gromgull: Couldn't get your script to was as-is with more recent version of rdflib, but this seems to do the trick - http://pastebin.ca/1436356 |
| 15:21:54 | <gromgull> | topyink: yes - it's the svn version of rdflib |
| 15:22:00 | <gromgull> | although I think the recent release is also close |
| 15:22:25 | <gromgull> | but the modules have been moved around |
| 15:25:27 | <mhausenblas> | fgiasson: why? |
| 15:25:47 | <fgiasson> | please re-read the above :) |
| 15:26:21 | <fgiasson> | the example with the bibo:Collection and void:Dataset particularly |
| 15:27:03 | <mhausenblas> | sorry, yeah |
| 15:27:04 | <fgiasson> | (one amongst many others) |
| 15:27:23 | <mhausenblas> | ahm, well, we did a careful analysis and had that discussion |
| 15:27:34 | <mhausenblas> | found that isPartOf is not really used |
| 15:27:42 | <fgiasson> | and what was the outcome of this discussion? |
| 15:27:56 | <mhausenblas> | so we introduced the semantics for it in the realm of datasets |
| 15:28:08 | <fgiasson> | and because it is not yet widely used, you keep dcterms:isPartOf? |
| 15:28:13 | <mhausenblas> | but we can have this discussion again, now with external input |
| 15:28:25 | <mhausenblas> | I'm not insisting on using it |
| 15:28:46 | <mhausenblas> | I just tell you that we didn't blindly guess but we had good reasons ;) |
| 15:29:09 | <tobyink> | fgiasson: I just use "is void:exampleResource of" for every resource. ;-) |
| 15:29:22 | <fgiasson> | well; what I would like to know are these good reasons; so that I find a potential issue in my own reasonning :) (can't think of everything ;) ) |
| 15:29:25 | <mhausenblas> | so, as I said, yes, we can create an issue (you want to do this yourself?) and we will discuss it |
| 15:29:59 | <mhausenblas> | oh, I'd have to dig trough the meeting records to precisely give you all the steps |
| 15:30:16 | <fgiasson> | if you have some time, this would be appreciated |
| 15:30:25 | <mhausenblas> | but IIRC we discussed that for quite a while |
| 15:30:33 | <fgiasson> | otherwise, are these records available somewhere? and where do we create issues? |
| 15:30:43 | <fgiasson> | yeah; I would guess so |
| 15:31:04 | <mhausenblas> | fgiasson: records are group-internal, sorry ;) |
| 15:31:09 | <mhausenblas> | issues: http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/issues/list |
| 15:31:28 | <mhausenblas> | please label with 'Release2.0' |
| 15:31:30 | <fgiasson> | good thanks |
| 15:31:56 | <fgiasson> | well; it would be helpful to know what the discussions around Void have been; and motivate the decisions, etc. |
| 15:32:05 | <mhausenblas> | I bring it up next time we have our telecon (which reminds me that a certain slacker still hasn't filled in the darned doodle, right, cygri ?) |
| 15:32:11 | <fgiasson> | (since it appears that there is no mailing list) |
| 15:32:21 | <mhausenblas> | and if everyone is fine with it I'll post, ok? |
| 15:32:30 | <mhausenblas> | there is one (again, group-internal) |
| 15:32:41 | <mhausenblas> | and the public-lod mailinglist |
| 15:32:46 | <fgiasson> | yeah, this is what I am wondering: why internal :) |
| 15:32:48 | <mhausenblas> | where review/input is appreciated |
| 15:33:06 | <mhausenblas> | fgiasson: this helps us focusing, lot of admin stuff, etc. |
| 15:33:31 | <mhausenblas> | it happened to be that there are four people that started this work and well ... there we go |
| 15:33:32 | <fgiasson> | sure; I am not saying doing all the admin stuff there; but maybe to open one publicly |
| 15:33:53 | <mhausenblas> | again, fgiasson the public list we're using is: public-lod@w3.org |
| 15:34:02 | <mhausenblas> | why should we create a new list? |
| 15:34:07 | <mhausenblas> | all the people are there anyway |
| 15:34:12 | <fgiasson> | ok |
| 15:34:17 | <mhausenblas> | this just causes fragmentation, IMHO ;) |
| 15:34:35 | <mhausenblas> | and, as I said, feeback, proposals, etc. are very welcome there |
| 15:34:55 | <mhausenblas> | and we always pick up everything and handle it with care, believe me :) |
| 15:35:02 | <fgiasson> | well, then why not only using one ML for all SW discussion? |
| 15:35:09 | <fgiasson> | sometimes, fragmentation is good ;) |
| 15:35:20 | <mhausenblas> | true. jsut a matter of granularity. |
| 15:35:40 | <fgiasson> | one ML per public ontology development project (I think) |
| 15:36:02 | <mhausenblas> | ok, this is a valid approach. we chose another ;) |
| 15:36:11 | <mhausenblas> | and so far it worked quite well. |
| 15:36:33 | <mhausenblas> | we also have an identi.ca group, #void, if you prefer this :D |
| 15:36:46 | <mhausenblas> | no. seriously. what's the point? |
| 15:36:55 | <fgiasson> | well, I am not that sure for the only reason that I don't have access to the rational that leaded to the reuse of dcterms:isPartOf :D |
| 15:37:27 | <mhausenblas> | on public-lod more people are reading, as we could reach out on any dedicated list |
| 15:37:41 | <mhausenblas> | and I already promised you to take care of it, didn't I |
| 15:37:48 | <mhausenblas> | (in public) |
| 15:37:51 | <mhausenblas> | :P |
| 15:38:15 | <fgiasson> | public or not, I only want to know :) |
| 15:38:35 | <mhausenblas> | sure thing. and we gonna provide you with it, rest assured ;) |
| 15:38:55 | <mhausenblas> | sorry, gotta run for a minute - BRB |
| 15:40:21 | <fgiasson> | good later |
| 15:43:26 | <mhausenblas> | ok, back ;) |
| 15:55:10 | <kwijibo> | fgiasson: , not read whole scroll back yet, but i think voiD might not be making the mistake you think it is making |
| 15:55:53 | <kwijibo> | we don't use dct:isPartOf to link a resource to a dataset that describes it |
| 15:56:17 | <kwijibo> | we use it to link a document describing the resource, to a dataset |
| 15:57:04 | <kwijibo> | eg: <> foaf:primaryTopic <#BigBen> ; dct:isPartOf </meta.n3#Dataset> . |
| 15:58:12 | <fgiasson> | okay; and anything to link a resource to a dataset? |
| 15:58:41 | <fgiasson> | for example: what if I have a file that is an aggregation of resources description from multiple datasets? |
| 15:59:59 | <kwijibo> | fgiasson: (and tobyink) I think there is a problem in linking a resource to a dataset |
| 16:00:29 | <kwijibo> | because (IMO) a resource cannot be part of a dataset - only a description of a resource can |
| 16:01:51 | <fgiasson> | well; if you want to go there.... anyway, my usecase remain: |
| 16:02:06 | <fgiasson> | what if you have one document describing resources from multiple datasets? |
| 16:02:51 | <tobyink> | void:exampleResource links a resource to a dataset though, doesn't it? |
| 16:04:39 | <kwijibo> | tobyink: yes, and i feel kind of funny about it |
| 16:05:20 | <kwijibo> | fgiasson: maybe you could split the document up into sections using sioc or so |
| 16:05:52 | <kwijibo> | sioc:Item dc:isPartOf <meta.n3#voiD-dataset> |
| 16:06:00 | <kwijibo> | sorry |
| 16:06:00 | <tobyink> | If it's OK to have foaf:primaryTopic links from RDF files to non-information-resources, then why not void:exampleResource links? |
| 16:06:01 | <kwijibo> | not that |
| 16:06:21 | <kwijibo> | [ a sioc:Item ; dc:isPartOf <meta.n3#voiD-dataset> . ] |
| 16:06:23 | <kwijibo> | that |
| 16:06:25 | <fgiasson> | kwijibo: sorry but this is a bad answer to me. To me, the document is immaterial. What I want is to keep provenance of resources (whatever they document where they have been serialized) |
| 16:07:16 | <kwijibo> | fgiasson: I think it doesn't feel right to say that a resource is part of a dataset - Big Ben is not part of dbpedia, only a description of it is |
| 16:08:39 | <kwijibo> | fgiasson: I'm not saying my sioc:Item solution is the perfect answer - I just thought of it just now, and indeed, the rdf:type of the document section is immaterial |
| 16:08:51 | <kwijibo> | but why doesn't it answer your use case? |
| 16:09:00 | <kwijibo> | oh |
| 16:09:01 | <kwijibo> | i see |
| 16:09:07 | <kwijibo> | sorry |
| 16:09:09 | <tobyink> | kwijibo: I agree, Big Ben is not part of dbpedia, but it can still be a void:exampleResource. (Big Ben is an example of the kind of resource that dbpedia has data on) |
| 16:09:41 | <kwijibo> | tobyink: yes, so void:exampleResource is not /too/ bad .. you just have to be careful how you use it |
| 16:10:24 | <kwijibo> | but directly saying :RealWorldThing :isPartOf :Dataset |
| 16:10:30 | <kwijibo> | i don't think that makes sense |
| 16:10:40 | <fgiasson> | a resource is a description of a thing; it is not the thing itself, please.... these discussion never lead to anything anyway. |
| 16:10:40 | <fgiasson> | here we are talking about describing knowledge and not any Web Arch stuff should affect any ontology developoment (IMO) |
| 16:10:44 | <tobyink> | Really, there should be a void:ResourceSet which acts as a counterpart of void:Dataset. void:Dataset represents the set of triples in the dataset; void:ResourceSet represents the set of things described by the Dataset. |
| 16:10:56 | <fgiasson> | bbk; lunch |
| 16:11:49 | <kwijibo> | tobyink: that seems like it could be a solution |
| 16:12:32 | <tobyink> | void:ResourceSet rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Bag . |
| 16:13:59 | <tobyink> | { ?x is rdfs:member of ?rs . ?dataset void:hasResourceSet ?rs . } => { ?dataset void:exampleResource ?x . } . |
| 16:15:11 | <kwijibo> | i think perhaps we need to tighten up how void:exampleResource and void:uriRegexPattern are specified |
| 16:17:08 | <kwijibo> | for example, if my LOD dataset is published at http://kwijibo.dataincubator.org/ but i don't want to, or can't, publishes dc:isPartOf backlinks to the dataset |
| 16:17:59 | <kwijibo> | then void:uriRegexPattern might seem a good way to claim provenance over resources in the http://kwijibo.dataincubator.org/ urlspace |
| 16:20:54 | <kwijibo> | but if I want to use void:uriRegexPattern in another way - to say that there are some descriptions of http://dbpedia.org resources mirrored in my dataset as well, then that use conflicts with the first use |
| 16:21:02 | <kwijibo> | *use case |
| 16:35:37 | <enjayhch> | ACTION heads home |
| 16:58:51 | <kwijibo> | i don't think I agree with fgiasson's statement "a resource is a description of a thing; it is not the thing itself" |
| 17:00:25 | <fgiasson> | kwijibo: please give me one concrete example where your application is made better with all the web httprange-14 discussion? |
| 17:03:05 | <kwijibo> | i just mean, i think a URI does identify a thing, and i thought that's how it worked, i thought that's what everyone had always been saying in all the tutorials etc |
| 17:04:13 | <kwijibo> | otherwise stuff like owl:sameAs would be completely nonsensical |
| 17:05:39 | <fgiasson> | some yes; all I don't think so |
| 17:08:40 | <Shepard> | please not another identity crisis, I think we've had enough of that |
| 17:09:03 | <PovAddict> | lol |
| 17:09:20 | <PovAddict> | httprange-14 took quite a few years to get resolved |
| 17:09:36 | <PovAddict> | and I took a few days to "get" the problem and the solution |
| 17:09:45 | <PovAddict> | so please don't change things around again :P |
| 17:10:38 | <fgiasson> | anyway, httprange-14 has nothing to do with ontology development (which is the point) |
| 17:11:43 | <kwijibo> | fgiasson: it kind of does when httprange-14 is about naming things on the web, and void is about making statements about groups of things named on the web |
| 17:11:52 | <fgiasson> | as Pat Hayes said: don't give meaning to something that doesn't have any (URI) |
| 17:12:07 | <fgiasson> | (except that it is a unique identifier, of course) |
| 17:12:17 | <kwijibo> | I can see how you could argue that an ontology about elephants isn't impacted upon by webarch |
| 17:12:26 | <fgiasson> | why the restriction "on the Web"? |
| 17:12:45 | <fgiasson> | is a dataset only a logical aggregation of things on the Web? |
| 17:13:10 | <kwijibo> | the things don't have to on the web, but the dataset does |
| 17:13:20 | <fgiasson> | couldn't Void be used in a SW oriented desktop application? |
| 17:13:20 | <kwijibo> | the void:Dataset anyway |
| 17:13:33 | <kwijibo> | locally i suppose |
| 17:14:01 | <fgiasson> | ho right; there is this assertion in Void's description |
| 17:14:07 | <fgiasson> | (intro) |
| 17:14:26 | <kwijibo> | but in that case i assume you wouldn't want to publish that you had a private dataset living on your laptop ? |
| 17:14:40 | <fgiasson> | why publishing? |
| 17:15:12 | <kwijibo> | voiD is targeted at publishing descriptions of datasets published on the web |
| 17:15:30 | <fgiasson> | why I couldn't use Void to describe datasets that are used by a local software. So, using void to have some maintenance information that I can use for any purpose (aggregation, statistics, internal application organization, etc)? |
| 17:15:40 | <fgiasson> | yeah, this is what I just read :) |
| 17:15:56 | <fgiasson> | then this lead to a new question: why? |
| 17:15:58 | <fgiasson> | :) |
| 17:16:01 | <kwijibo> | i suppose you could if you wanted - but it wasn't designed with this in mind |
| 17:16:28 | <kwijibo> | because there would have been quite different use cases and requirements |
| 17:17:40 | <kwijibo> | so, i dunno - does that explain why? |
| 17:18:17 | <kwijibo> | basically, it didn't seem important to the authors to incorporate other kinds of dataset into the vocabulary |
| 17:18:44 | <kwijibo> | so we didn't want to claim that it would be useful for anything other than web-based datasets |
| 17:19:40 | <fgiasson> | ok good |
| 17:19:48 | <kwijibo> | in fact we almost made it a lot stricter (only LOD ) |
| 17:19:50 | <kwijibo> | gotta go |
| 17:19:53 | <kwijibo> | sorry |
| 17:22:22 | <drobilla> | ACTION wishes turtle was trig |
| 17:25:06 | <drobilla> | turtle and trig should have some kind of in-document identification, ala doctype |
| 17:25:39 | <drobilla> | is this file turtle? trig? n3? |
| 17:26:02 | <Shepard> | they have different mime types... |
| 17:26:38 | <drobilla> | my file system doesn't have mime types ;) |
| 17:27:02 | <drobilla> | on the web it's a non-issue, sure |
| 17:27:14 | <Shepard> | which operating system? |
| 17:27:29 | <drobilla> | lets go with 'any' |
| 17:27:39 | <drobilla> | e.g. fopen doesn't give you a mime type... |
| 17:28:22 | <drobilla> | the perfect world where that kind of meta information is always trucked along with files would be nice, sure, but it's not this one :) |
| 17:28:50 | <Shepard> | well, if you can't figure out the mime type of a file, you're screwed anyway, no? if the file extensions are not helpful enough then yes, you have a problem, as the magic bytes would be the same |
| 17:29:45 | <fgiasson> | why talking about mime types here? |
| 17:30:09 | <fgiasson> | we are talking about describing resources that results in a graph of triples |
| 17:30:19 | <fgiasson> | this has nothing to do with any serialization stuff |
| 17:30:56 | <Shepard> | no it doesn't, I don't think drobilla was relating to that topic :) |
| 17:31:06 | <drobilla> | Shepard: in some kind of abstract theoretical sense, I guess |
| 17:31:18 | <drobilla> | Shepard: but virtually every local/native/etc program ever does this |
| 17:31:45 | <drobilla> | Shepard: using the file extension mostly, but I would like to avoid that (since I want to use an application specific one for that reason) |
| 17:32:20 | <drobilla> | @doctype <turtleuri> would mean the redland guess parser could figure it out no matter what |
| 17:32:32 | <PovAddict> | if they were XML, you'd use the namespace URI :) |
| 17:33:03 | <drobilla> | also useful for stupid text coming over the wire or an fd or something (these syntaxes make a pretty good streaming syntax as it happens) |
| 17:33:11 | <fgiasson> | shepard, drobilla: oups; it was another conversation, sorry ;) |
| 17:33:22 | <PovAddict> | drobilla: your application protocol should tell you what it is |
| 17:33:27 | <Shepard> | if you don't want to create compatibility issues (because the parsers out there don't know this keyword) then you could use a special comment for now. like the hash bang :) |
| 17:33:28 | <drobilla> | fgiasson: yeah, just my own completely unrelated rantings :) |
| 17:33:42 | <drobilla> | PovAddict: true |
| 17:34:19 | <drobilla> | Shepard: the @ directive should be extensible :) |
| 18:26:27 | <MacTed> | parsing "naming things on the web" seems a large part of the httprange-14 comprehension challenge... "naming-things on-the-web" <> "naming things-on-the-web". |
| 18:33:14 | <kwijibo> | MacTed: true |
| 18:42:27 | <kwijibo> | fgiasson: is your objection to voiD's advocated use of dcterms:isPartOf, that it is too generic? |
| 19:34:23 | <mhausenblas> | good nite Web of Data |
| 20:03:42 | <fgiasson> | kwijibo: at first yes; but after the "document, resource, httprange-14, LOD dataset description only, ..." discussion, I found it was deeper than that :) |
| 20:04:46 | <kwijibo> | well, we have to be clear and concise in itemising the issues :) |
| 20:05:47 | <fgiasson> | well; if void's role is only restricted to LOD dataset; then I have do create/use something else; that is it |
| 20:06:13 | <kwijibo> | fgiasson: no, we broadened it slightly beyond LOD |
| 20:06:17 | <kwijibo> | but not much |
| 20:07:05 | <kwijibo> | you are free to use it for whatever you want, if you think it fits, but we are only really keen on developing it for RDF data on the web |
| 20:07:09 | <fgiasson> | I was thinking of it as dataset description... any kind of dataset (with dereferencable URIs or not) |
| 20:07:31 | <kwijibo> | well, the uris don't necessarily have to be dereferencable |
| 20:07:42 | <fgiasson> | and in that case, I found dcterms:isPartOf too general, and I though that it would be good to have a subproperty of this property in void |
| 20:07:54 | <kwijibo> | but voiD is not meant for CSV files or something |
| 20:08:28 | <fgiasson> | is a dataset only a "file"? |
| 20:09:21 | <fgiasson> | to me a dataset is a logical aggregation of data which as a core characteristic which is: provenance; source. |
| 20:10:03 | <kwijibo> | yes |
| 20:10:19 | <fgiasson> | this doesn't necessarly has to do with the way these datasets are delivered (files, API endpoints, dereferencable URIs, etc) |
| 20:10:44 | <kwijibo> | no, it doesn't |
| 20:10:47 | <fgiasson> | but the communication channel(s) can be describe as well for conveniency in some usecases |
| 20:15:58 | <kwijibo> | fgiasson: i would say that's pretty much the case with voiD - we developed it because we felt a need to describe RDF, Web of Data datasets, so we optimise for that, but there is nothing to say that the data must use http uris, or have a sparql endpoint or whatever |
| 20:16:43 | <kwijibo> | however, if you were designing a vocabulary for desktop datasets, it might have quite a different set of classes and properties |
| 20:17:22 | <fgiasson> | okay great; this is what I wanted to hear; however the introduction paragraph would need some re-work then. |
| 20:17:22 | <fgiasson> | if this is the case, then I still suggest to think creating a void:isPartOf or something, property |
| 20:17:42 | <fgiasson> | hoo sure |
| 20:17:59 | <fgiasson> | but this is not my use case; was just to know if it could fit for this :) |
| 20:31:05 | <kwijibo> | fgiasson: no, I don't think we would change our definition of a dataset, I think it is a good one (needs to have a single provider - eg, "the SIOC-osphers" is not one dataset, needs to be RDF, and needs to be accessible somehow - so it doesn't need to have dereferencible uris, or SPARQL, but the dataset description should tell clients how to get at the data, otherwise, what is the point ?) |
| 20:31:28 | <kwijibo> | if you need a more generic class, there is dcmi:Dataset |
| 20:32:12 | <fgiasson> | maybe yes |
| 20:32:22 | <kidehen> | fgiasson: VoiD is not about LOD specifically, it is about HTTP accessible data entities (objects, items, resources). Of course the prime usecase today is the LOD cloud |
| 20:34:19 | <kidehen> | fgiasson: re. resource, it isn't a description of a "Thing" if its a darn non-information resource (a data object) . It is supposed to be a description of a "Thing" if doing Linked Data and you mean: information resource :-) I know you know this anyhow, so this is more about clarity based on my rewind of the thread |
| 20:35:48 | <kidehen> | fgiasson: kwijibo was trying to clarify the distinction and I noticed http-range-14 coming up etc.. |
| 20:36:53 | <kidehen> | fgiasson: now for your main concern, I think VoiD should use sub-property approach for clarity instead of going directly to dct:isPartOf etc.. |
| 20:37:52 | <fgiasson> | yeah; this is what I thought |
| 20:39:34 | <kidehen> | fgiasson: we have a collection of triples in a data set, but the collection is constellation of statements that describe a variety of subjects. There is a bona fide association between the subjects that a referenced in Subject and Object slots in a data set, and I think Toby came up with an elegant resolution for that. |
| 20:40:27 | <kidehen> | fgiasson: so as per usual everyone was quite right in this pretty long thread, but everyone (as per usual) was focused on their specific point of interest :-) |
| 20:41:03 | <kidehen> | fgiasson: my interest is typically peace and harmony :-) |
| 20:41:13 | <fgiasson> | :) |
| 20:41:24 | <fgiasson> | well; was just wondering; and maybe suggesting an enhancement; ehhehe |
| 20:42:47 | <kidehen> | fgiasson: worthwhile discussion, now just about harmonious progression of the suggestions etc.. :-) |
| 20:42:56 | <kwijibo> | i think, if there is to be a new property, the semantics i would want it to express would be something like: <foo.rdf> void:containsDataIn </meta#Dataset> |
| 20:43:16 | <tobyink0> | re isPartOf/hasPart - "A taxonomy of part-whole or meronymic relations is developed to explain the ordinary English-speaker's use of the term ?part of? and its cognates." |
| 20:43:20 | <kwijibo> | but preferably expressed as a noun |
| 20:43:29 | <tobyink0> | "The resulting classification yields six types of meronymic relations: 1. component-integral object (pedal-bike), 2. member-collection (ship-fleet), 3. portion-mass (slice-pie), 4. stuff-object (steel-car), 5. feature-activity (paying-shopping), and 6. place-area (Everglades-Florida)." |
| 20:44:09 | <tobyink0> | (that's from A taxonomy of part-whole relations by Morton E. Winston, Roger Chaffin and Douglas Herrmann. |
| 21:03:37 | <kwijibo> | tobyink: where is this from ? |
| 21:03:44 | <kwijibo> | tobyink0: |
| 21:16:11 | <tobyink0> | kwijibo - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W48-4F2T79V-N&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=71d9e9cf8f5c24261addf0ffb0498f3d |
| 21:32:22 | <Shepard> | tobyink: I take it instance-class is not seen as a meronymic relation then? |
Back to channel and daily index: content-negotiated html turtle