Comments on: News from the frontier: Geonames on the Semantic Web http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web Richard Cyganiak's Weblog Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:05:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: to.rtic.us » Blog Archive » dowhatimean.net » News from the frontier: Geonames on the Semantic Web http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-64811 to.rtic.us » Blog Archive » dowhatimean.net » News from the frontier: Geonames on the Semantic Web Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:31:08 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-64811 <p>[...] dowhatimean.net » News from the frontier: Geonames on the Semantic Web [...]</p> [...] dowhatimean.net » News from the frontier: Geonames on the Semantic Web [...]

]]> By: Semantic Web : Concept vs Document « Geonames http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-12219 Semantic Web : Concept vs Document « Geonames Sat, 21 Oct 2006 07:28:33 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-12219 <p>[...] With feedback and help from the blogosphere we have updated the geonames ontology and fixed some flaws in the corresponding web service. The ontology now includes linked data such as contains (administrative divisions), neighbours (for features with a boundary) or nearby features. The web service is using two URIs to clearly distinguish between Concept (the thing as is) and Document (the document about it). [...]</p> [...] With feedback and help from the blogosphere we have updated the geonames ontology and fixed some flaws in the corresponding web service. The ontology now includes linked data such as contains (administrative divisions), neighbours (for features with a boundary) or nearby features. The web service is using two URIs to clearly distinguish between Concept (the thing as is) and Document (the document about it). [...]

]]> By: Richard Cyganiak http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11992 Richard Cyganiak Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:28:11 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11992 <p>Bernard, conceptually there's no difference between a Web page and a Web API query result. In both cases, the server accepts a URI and answers with a document (HTML or XML or whatever), which may be generated dynamically. This, I think, is the key idea behind the REST style of web services.</p> <p>I've written <a href="http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/fixing-ambiguous-concept-uris">some more about the 303 thing</a>.</p> Bernard, conceptually there’s no difference between a Web page and a Web API query result. In both cases, the server accepts a URI and answers with a document (HTML or XML or whatever), which may be generated dynamically. This, I think, is the key idea behind the REST style of web services.

I’ve written some more about the 303 thing.

]]> By: Bernard Vatant http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11970 Bernard Vatant Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:06:40 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11970 <p>Richard, Tim</p> <p>Thanks again for your quick reaction to geonames-in-RDF. Please consider again this is a first release, set up in two weeks through a few exchanges with Marc, and subject to improvements. Actually, I'm amazed by the feedback so far. About the TAG resolution, which I have read again and again trying to make sense of it - and must admit I have not yet ... (and yes, it's a consensus, and yes we have to apply it, even if some very smart people have explained why it's broken ...) So let me make sure what it is the TAG want here on an example : http://ws.geonames.org/rdf?geonameId=3014258 (1) should be only the URI for the "document" as it stands now (although I have hard time considering the result of a query as a "document", let's assume it), and we should have a different URI, like e.g. http://ws.geonames.org/rdf#geonameId=3014258 (2) or whatever, identifying the "Feature" itself, and have for (2) a 303 redirecting to (1). If it's only that, ask Marc to go for it, and he surely will : let me insist again he does all the real stuff, he's the data base and server administrator, and I just wrote a few lines of OWL for him.</p> Richard, Tim

Thanks again for your quick reaction to geonames-in-RDF. Please consider again this is a first release, set up in two weeks through a few exchanges with Marc, and subject to improvements. Actually, I’m amazed by the feedback so far. About the TAG resolution, which I have read again and again trying to make sense of it - and must admit I have not yet … (and yes, it’s a consensus, and yes we have to apply it, even if some very smart people have explained why it’s broken …) So let me make sure what it is the TAG want here on an example : http://ws.geonames.org/rdf?geonameId=3014258 (1) should be only the URI for the “document” as it stands now (although I have hard time considering the result of a query as a “document”, let’s assume it), and we should have a different URI, like e.g. http://ws.geonames.org/rdf#geonameId=3014258 (2) or whatever, identifying the “Feature” itself, and have for (2) a 303 redirecting to (1). If it’s only that, ask Marc to go for it, and he surely will : let me insist again he does all the real stuff, he’s the data base and server administrator, and I just wrote a few lines of OWL for him.

]]> By: Tim Berners-Lee http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11951 Tim Berners-Lee Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:48:26 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11951 <p>Bernard, PLEASE use HTTP 303s to from the concept to the document. This was the conclusion that the W3C TAG came to about what should be done. (Wheras ambiguity can be handled by people, it is a mess for machines. A place name and a document about it quite different. )</p> <p>For example, the tabulator view http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2005/ajar/ajaw/tab.html?uri=http://ws.geonames.org/rdf%3FgeonameId%3D2950159 shows something which "mentions Feature, and is inCountry DE". That's silly. The file mentions the class "Feature". The cty is in Germany. Confusing them really does not help.</p> <p>This is a tremendous set of data you have there. Richard's review is spot on. The data is currently spolied by this architectural flow which could be fairly easily fixed, as is done in semantic wiki sites, among many.</p> <p>(The backlinks is the one thing which is less clear. If there are many, then it may be useful to give instead of all the "contains" give a pointer "containsList" to a virtual documnent which has a list of tall the things Berlin contains. This is like having a pointer to a list of publications on your FOAF page instead of all the publications themselves.)</p> Bernard, PLEASE use HTTP 303s to from the concept to the document. This was the conclusion that the W3C TAG came to about what should be done. (Wheras ambiguity can be handled by people, it is a mess for machines. A place name and a document about it quite different. )

For example, the tabulator view http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2005/ajar/ajaw/tab.html?uri=http://ws.geonames.org/rdf%3FgeonameId%3D2950159 shows something which “mentions Feature, and is inCountry DE”. That’s silly. The file mentions the class “Feature”. The cty is in Germany. Confusing them really does not help.

This is a tremendous set of data you have there. Richard’s review is spot on. The data is currently spolied by this architectural flow which could be fairly easily fixed, as is done in semantic wiki sites, among many.

(The backlinks is the one thing which is less clear. If there are many, then it may be useful to give instead of all the “contains” give a pointer “containsList” to a virtual documnent which has a list of tall the things Berlin contains. This is like having a pointer to a list of publications on your FOAF page instead of all the publications themselves.)

]]> By: Richard Cyganiak http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11949 Richard Cyganiak Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:41:53 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11949 <p>Bernard: The TAG <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html">has spoken</a> on the issue of concepts vs. documents. Of course there will always be people who are unhappy with the consensus, such as Pat, and they might be right or they might be wrong, and we could keep discussing the “<a href="http://leobard.twoday.net/stories/1165470/">URI crisis</a>” to the heat death of the universe. For the sake of building an interoperable Web please let's just get over it and move on.</p> <p>About the backlings being too expensive, that's too bad, it means that crawlers and browsers can never discover the range of available names. Now, places will become part of the Web only when they are linked to by someone else.</p> <p>Marc: Cheers, the new configuration works great.</p> Bernard: The TAG has spoken on the issue of concepts vs. documents. Of course there will always be people who are unhappy with the consensus, such as Pat, and they might be right or they might be wrong, and we could keep discussing the “URI crisis” to the heat death of the universe. For the sake of building an interoperable Web please let’s just get over it and move on.

About the backlings being too expensive, that’s too bad, it means that crawlers and browsers can never discover the range of available names. Now, places will become part of the Web only when they are linked to by someone else.

Marc: Cheers, the new configuration works great.

]]> By: marc http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11940 marc Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:27:59 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11940 <p>I have changed added content negotiation configuration on the webserver and hope it is working better now for you.</p> I have changed added content negotiation configuration on the webserver and hope it is working better now for you.

]]> By: Bernard Vatant http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11933 Bernard Vatant Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:49:12 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11933 <p>Thanks Richard for the review, and I hope it will help to go from almost right to right :)) First quick reactions : Concerning the URI ambiguity, I think it is a non-starter in this case. What "concepts" do you refer to? You have resources, and it's up to you to interpret them as documents and/or concepts. Read Pat Hayes "In Defence of Ambiguity" at http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/irw2006/presentations/HayesSlides.pdf ... this is my defence :) Concerning content negotiation, I thought Marc had did the right stuff, since I directed him to the W3C Working Draft on "Publishing Vocabularies for the Semantic Web". He is the responsible for the server, Web Service and all of geonames. I only worked on the ontology. Concerning backlinks : not sure it is a good idea for the Web service given the size of the data base. Concerning rdfs:label. Sure a good idea. I think it should not be too difficult to add.</p> Thanks Richard for the review, and I hope it will help to go from almost right to right :)) First quick reactions : Concerning the URI ambiguity, I think it is a non-starter in this case. What “concepts” do you refer to? You have resources, and it’s up to you to interpret them as documents and/or concepts. Read Pat Hayes “In Defence of Ambiguity” at http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/irw2006/presentations/HayesSlides.pdf … this is my defence :) Concerning content negotiation, I thought Marc had did the right stuff, since I directed him to the W3C Working Draft on “Publishing Vocabularies for the Semantic Web”. He is the responsible for the server, Web Service and all of geonames. I only worked on the ontology. Concerning backlinks : not sure it is a good idea for the Web service given the size of the data base. Concerning rdfs:label. Sure a good idea. I think it should not be too difficult to add.

]]> By: Semantic Web « Geonames http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11922 Semantic Web « Geonames Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:56:05 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/10/news-from-the-frontier-geonames-on-the-semantic-web#comment-11922 <p>[...] Thanks to the Geonames Ontology, contributed by Bernard Vatant, all geonames features now have a RDF description for the Semantic Web. The Semantic Web aims to bring structure to the Web and make its content easily readable by machines. The semantic web is sometimes referred to as Web3.0. The balloon on the geonames map display has received two new menus for ‘perma link’ and ’semantic web rdf’. Harry Chen has a good introduction to the Geonames Ontology on the Geospatial Semantic Web Blog. Richard Cyganiak writes in his blog “This is an excellent example of a Semantic Web site done right. Well, almost right …” and in an other posting he describes how to use the Semantic Web URI of a geonames feature with a FOAF file. Posted by marc Filed in Uncategorized [...]</p> [...] Thanks to the Geonames Ontology, contributed by Bernard Vatant, all geonames features now have a RDF description for the Semantic Web. The Semantic Web aims to bring structure to the Web and make its content easily readable by machines. The semantic web is sometimes referred to as Web3.0. The balloon on the geonames map display has received two new menus for ‘perma link’ and ’semantic web rdf’. Harry Chen has a good introduction to the Geonames Ontology on the Geospatial Semantic Web Blog. Richard Cyganiak writes in his blog “This is an excellent example of a Semantic Web site done right. Well, almost right …” and in an other posting he describes how to use the Semantic Web URI of a geonames feature with a FOAF file. Posted by marc Filed in Uncategorized [...]

]]>