John (01)
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:37 PM, John Graybeal <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have a few practical implementation approach issues when dealing
> with ontology term URIs. Is this an appropriate forum for asking such
> questions, or if not, can you suggest a better one? As my project is
> putting together on ontology repository, we are creating a mechanism
> to resolve URLs that are used for terms, so we are forced to flatten
> many philosophical and strategic questions into more mundane
> practicalities. (02)
sounds like engineering .... (03)
I am evaluating ontology repository architectures, in fact, I am
trying to work out how can the concept of ' centralized repository'
be reconciled with the notion of 'linked data model' , my conclusion
so far is that a repository cannot be centralized without conflicting
with the core notion of distributed model as the LDM, not without
convolution the web is the repository for ontology, if we have the
right representation and querying mechanisms, and thats a central idea
to the semantic web. But maybe your approach is distributed? (04)
> For example, the first issue is as follows: My understanding is that
> fragment identifiers are used for RDF resources to indicate the term.
> But browsers are not built to handle/resolve/present RDF/OWL
> resources, or to display particular terms from them -- they will just
> download the URI resource as a file and that's that. (05)
there are several tools/environments being built to support various kinds of
ontological data viewing, editing and querying , (06)
Can anyone point
> me to existing examples where the server can present the results of a
> URL like
> http://mmisw.org/ont/mmi/200807/phenomena#wind_speed
> so that the user sees a page in their browser on the term wind_speed
> (either exclusively, or at least at the top of the page)? (07)
isn't that what Tabulator is supposed to do? I have heard of
rhodonite, and brown sauce have similar functions
search for 'URI browser' or 'rdf browser' - they are designed to
interact with data expressed as rdf, but i am not too sure about what
level of granularity (level of fragment) they support, please let us
know what you find out if you look into it (08)
However, if you have a specific interface or functional requirement in
mind such as import/export of individual fragments, or how the value
of the fragment should be displayed/visualized and stored (make local
copy tc), please specify it so that we use it as input for further
development of products (09)
> (It would be so nice if the URL could replace the '#' with a '/', but
> then it wouldn't be a nice RDF term URI, would it?) (010)
i dont think machine has such preferences...:-)
but for humans it should be easy to have a friendly tag masking the
ugly uri syntax, if the hash bothers you (011)
>
> I can imagine how to do this but I'd like to leverage any other effort
> in the community, if such exists. (012)
there exist a few, thus at different stages of development and
flavours, and each with their own set of quirks (013)
please share your findings.. (014)
PDM (015)
>
>
> John
>
> --------------
> John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal@xxxxxxxxx> -- 831-775-1956
> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
>
>
lovely place monterey bay (016)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (017)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (018)
|