[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: klink
Subject: Re: Anything about Tenor? & creating a content system -> RDF
From: Leo Sauermann <leo () gnowsis ! com>
Date: 2005-08-11 15:51:13
Message-ID: 42FB73F1.1030107 () gnowsis ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
Hi all.
>For the record there's already an ioslave playing with the C++ port of Lucene:
>http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=23874
>http://kioclucene.objectis.net/documentation/demos/demo1
>
>
great
>Ah-ah RDFS/OWL detected. =)
>Yes that's exactly my biggest worry with RDF, it could quickly become overkill
>we surely don't want to support most of its vocabularies.
>
>
rdfs:domain & rdfs:range are usually enough. rdfs:subclassof is also
nice. but more you often don't need
>You state the obvious, the point is more do we really want and need to express
>anything?
>
>
sooner or later, its better to be on the safe side. just a hacker feeling.
>
>
>>there are some points in RDF that suck, like sequences or lists, but
>>these can be handled.
>>
>>
>
>Could you be more precise here?
>
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#containers
this gets ugly when you really add thousands of items in a container and
then add/remove a few in between. especially with MySQL backed models,
you might have surprises
nearly the same with those:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/
another big big and structural problem is that when you want a container
as a property of a resource, you can't tell the value type.
example: I am a folder and I contain Images, a list of images
I - foo:contain - SequenceX
I - rdf:type - foo:ImageFolder
SequenceX - rdf:li - image1
SequenceX - rdf:li - image2
If you want to express this data structure in RDFS, you can't really,
because it only allows you to either say:
foo:ImageFolder rdf:type rdfs:Class
foo:contain a rdf:Property;
rdfs:domain foo:ImageFolder;
rdfs:range rdfs:Seq.
saying, that you can't do now:
foo:contain rdfs:range foo:Image
but that is details.
>
>
>>>In this case, I'd like to be able to have a textual format in order to
>>>have a clearer opinion about RDF usage in Aduna Autofocus. I can't find
>>>such an export unfortunately.
>>>
>>>
>>ok, I'll bug the developers for this one.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks a lot.
>
>
They said they work on a developers release. Acutally you could get your
fingers on Aduna Metadata Server, thats basically embedded in
AdunaAutofocus.
>
>
>>sure, but you will need a metadata format anyhow.
>>The big ontology work is not sitting down and writing an OWL file, the
>>problem is to agree with people like the nifty guys in this email-group
>>if we now call the thing "title" or "name" or "label". That is really
>>the hard work.
>>
>>
>
>Oh please, don't get me on this... your view is only about one flavor of
>ontologies. In the general case you know that it really raises more questions
>on a structural level and the ontology refinement is a work by itself. In
>particular when you're working on domain ontologies where it's difficult to
>reach a consensus on the domain representation it's not only about naming
>some properties but which concepts you'll keep in the final version. You have
>also to be sure that it meets the requirements for the resulting application.
>
>
yep, I only illustrated the beginnning of the endless discussions. But
thats everywhere with code.
>I guess that for data formats "ontologies" are really easier to obtain, since
>the available metadata were fixed first anyway. Nice point, I didn't noticed
>it earlier, it's maybe because I have to deal with domain ontologies on a
>daily basis.
>
>
which domains?
>Yes, but we have guarantees that it's a better solution than C in our case. Do
>we have guarantees that going for RDF formalism is better than an ad hoc
>model in our case? not sure...
>
>
never sure, its just strong developer feeling.
>
>
>You should really avoid using such absolute terms. A particular community as a
>whole is moving towards RDF, it's not just because you are in this particular
>community that the world as a whole is moving towards RDF.
>
>
ok agreed. I am too deep in my topic.
>>* that metadata extractors/file filters from aduna, gnowsis, kowari,
>>intellidimension, ...
>>
>>
>
>I admit that at least Aduna looks interesting in this matter. As for gnowsis,
>it's on my todo on things I should test, but I doubt I'll find much time to
>do it for a while.
>
>
>
don't touch it until december, its dirty. we are working on it night & day.
>
>Hehe, I know another one in this regard : the KDE community.
>
>
ok, thats a point now. yep, this community is good.
cheers
Leo
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<!---->Hi all.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200508111313.47600.ervin@ipsquad.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">For the record there's already an ioslave playing with the C++ port of \
Lucene: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=23874">http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=23874</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="http://kioclucene.objectis.net/documentation/demos/demo1">http://kioclucene.objectis.net/documentation/demos/demo1</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
great<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200508111313.47600.ervin@ipsquad.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Ah-ah RDFS/OWL detected. =)
Yes that's exactly my biggest worry with RDF, it could quickly become overkill
we surely don't want to support most of its vocabularies.
</pre>
</blockquote>
rdfs:domain & rdfs:range are usually enough. rdfs:subclassof is
also nice. but more you often don't need<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200508111313.47600.ervin@ipsquad.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You state the obvious, the point is more do we really want and need to \
express anything?
</pre>
</blockquote>
sooner or later, its better to be on the safe side. just a hacker
feeling.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200508111313.47600.ervin@ipsquad.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">there are some points in RDF that suck, like sequences or lists, but
these can be handled.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Could you be more precise here?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#containers">http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#containers</a><br>
<br>
this gets ugly when you really add thousands of items in a container
and then add/remove a few in between. especially with MySQL backed
models, you might have surprises<br>
<br>
nearly the same with those:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/">http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/</a><br> <br>
another big big and structural problem is that when you want a
container as a property of a resource, you can't tell the value type.<br>
example: I am a folder and I contain Images, a list of images<br>
I - foo:contain - SequenceX<br>
I - rdf:type - foo:ImageFolder<br>
SequenceX - rdf:li - image1<br>
SequenceX - rdf:li - image2<br>
<br>
If you want to express this data structure in RDFS, you can't really,
because it only allows you to either say:<br>
foo:ImageFolder rdf:type rdfs:Class<br>
foo:contain a rdf:Property;<br>
rdfs:domain foo:ImageFolder;<br>
rdfs:range rdfs:Seq.<br>
<br>
saying, that you can't do now:<br>
foo:contain rdfs:range foo:Image<br>
<br>
but that is details.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200508111313.47600.ervin@ipsquad.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In this case, I'd like to be able to have a textual format in \
order to have a clearer opinion about RDF usage in Aduna Autofocus. I can't find
such an export unfortunately.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">ok, I'll bug the developers for this one.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Thanks a lot.
</pre>
</blockquote>
They said they work on a developers release. Acutally you could get
your fingers on Aduna Metadata Server, thats basically embedded in
AdunaAutofocus.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200508111313.47600.ervin@ipsquad.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">sure, but you will need a metadata format anyhow.
The big ontology work is not sitting down and writing an OWL file, the
problem is to agree with people like the nifty guys in this email-group
if we now call the thing "title" or "name" or "label". That is really
the hard work.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Oh please, don't get me on this... your view is only about one flavor of
ontologies. In the general case you know that it really raises more questions
on a structural level and the ontology refinement is a work by itself. In
particular when you're working on domain ontologies where it's difficult to
reach a consensus on the domain representation it's not only about naming
some properties but which concepts you'll keep in the final version. You have
also to be sure that it meets the requirements for the resulting application.
</pre>
</blockquote>
yep, I only illustrated the beginnning of the endless discussions. But
thats everywhere with code.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200508111313.47600.ervin@ipsquad.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I guess that for data formats "ontologies" are really easier to obtain, since
the available metadata were fixed first anyway. Nice point, I didn't noticed
it earlier, it's maybe because I have to deal with domain ontologies on a
daily basis.
</pre>
</blockquote>
which domains?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200508111313.47600.ervin@ipsquad.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Yes, but we have guarantees that it's a better solution than C in our case. Do
we have guarantees that going for RDF formalism is better than an ad hoc
model in our case? not sure...
</pre>
</blockquote>
never sure, its just strong developer feeling.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200508111313.47600.ervin@ipsquad.net" type="cite"><br>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You should really avoid using such absolute terms. A particular community as a
whole is moving towards RDF, it's not just because you are in this particular
community that the world as a whole is moving towards RDF.
</pre>
</blockquote>
ok agreed. I am too deep in my topic.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200508111313.47600.ervin@ipsquad.net" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">* that metadata extractors/file filters from aduna, gnowsis, kowari,
intellidimension, ...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I admit that at least Aduna looks interesting in this matter. As for gnowsis,
it's on my todo on things I should test, but I doubt I'll find much time to
do it for a while.
</pre>
</blockquote>
don't touch it until december, its dirty. we are working on it night
& day.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200508111313.47600.ervin@ipsquad.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Hehe, I know another one in this regard : the KDE community.
</pre>
</blockquote>
ok, thats a point now. yep, this community is good.<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
Leo<br>
</body>
</html>
_______________________________________________
Klink mailing list
Klink@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/klink
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic