You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@stanbol.apache.org by "Enrico Daga (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2010/11/24 17:41:13 UTC
[jira] Created: (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
------------------------------------
Key: STANBOL-3
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
Project: Stanbol
Issue Type: Improvement
Reporter: Enrico Daga
The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
Stanbol vocabularies should:
- be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
- be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
- be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Valentina Presutti (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13067618#comment-13067618 ]
Valentina Presutti commented on STANBOL-3:
------------------------------------------
Rupert, sure we're happy to help if this is still a valid request.
I agree with Olivier, we should not be bound to schema.org although we should support it - even by default if you think it's a good idea.
However, I wanted to go back to the namespace issue :) which is a completely different one.
If Stanbol uses and deploy some vocabulary they should have a stable URI.
We can use the PURL service, or have a stanbol@apache base URI, the important think is that it's associated with a description (see linked data guidelines) and it's stable.
Did you rich any decision? Maybe I missed something, sorry!
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] Commented: (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Rupert Westenthaler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12983670#action_12983670 ]
Rupert Westenthaler commented on STANBOL-3:
-------------------------------------------
One of the first think we need to do is to agree to a namespace for the Stanbol specific Ontologies.
Currently the Ontologies use "http://www.iks-project.eu/ontology/" as namespace.
I can imagine three different possibilities.
(1) the politically correct one
"http://incubator.apache.org/stanbol/ontology/"
That is how one typically solves problems like this. Take an URL you own and create the namespace within that region. However this will mean, that we will (hopefully) need to change the namespace in future to (2).
(2) the optimistic one
"http://stanbol.apache.org/ontology/"
OK currently there is nothing like stanbol.apache.org, but it is also OK to use "org.apache.stanbol" as java packages and osgi groupId. I would really like to use a namespace like that from the beginning, but it would be great if one could comment if this would be OK.
(3) the foundational one
"http://ontology.apache.org/stanbol/"
If Apache would provide an own subdomain for ontologies defined/used by apache projects I would be happy to use it.
WDYT
Rupert
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Olivier Grisel (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13053272#comment-13053272 ]
Olivier Grisel commented on STANBOL-3:
--------------------------------------
I would really appreciate if all Java components could be schema agnostic and that the schema classes used would only stem from the OSGi configuration of those component. I know that this is not yet the case for OpenNLP NER engine but we should keep this as a design goal.
Other than that I am ok with using the schema.org taxonomy for the default classes in the default configuration of the of packaged launchers.
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Issue Comment Edited] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol
vocabularies
Posted by "Olivier Grisel (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13053272#comment-13053272 ]
Olivier Grisel edited comment on STANBOL-3 at 6/22/11 2:06 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
I would really appreciate if all Java components could be schema agnostic and that the schema classes used would only stem from the OSGi configuration of those components. I know that this is not yet the case for OpenNLP NER engine but we should keep this as a design goal.
Other than that I am ok with using the schema.org taxonomy for the default classes in the default configuration of the of packaged launchers.
was (Author: ogrisel):
I would really appreciate if all Java components could be schema agnostic and that the schema classes used would only stem from the OSGi configuration of those component. I know that this is not yet the case for OpenNLP NER engine but we should keep this as a design goal.
Other than that I am ok with using the schema.org taxonomy for the default classes in the default configuration of the of packaged launchers.
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Issue Comment Edited] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol
vocabularies
Posted by "Rupert Westenthaler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13054926#comment-13054926 ]
Rupert Westenthaler edited comment on STANBOL-3 at 6/25/11 3:53 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I mainly agree with Olivier as long as it is about Statements consumed by the users (e.g. the URI used for a Person detected by the opennlp-ner engine).
However I would not recommend the same for metadata (e.g. fise:extracted-from or the dc metadata added for Enhancements. Such configuration would be really long and it would be really tricky (for users) to change them. In addition this would only allow to change URIs, but not to change the structure of the generated graph (e.g. if users want to simplify the structure of the written enhancements). For this I suggest to use the "refactor engine" and to provide (maybe even within the default distribution of Stanbol) different sets of rules for different usage scenarios. It should be also possible to "install" additional sets by using the DataFileProvider functionality already available in Stanbol.
The entityhub is schema agnostic. However it uses some properties to store metadata for Entities and to link the metadata of an entity with the content. In addition it is planed to provide a set of mapping rules that can convert properties of Entities described by the typical Linked Data Ontologies (e.g. foaf, sioc, goodRelations ...) to the schema.org counterparts. Currently I plan to start this by using the rather primitive mapping infrastructure built in to the Entityhub, but I would also like to use the much richer possibilities of the /rules package for that.
If someone could help with the rules I am happy to work on that.
was (Author: rwesten):
I mainly agree with Olivier as long as it is about Statements consumed by the users (e.g. the URI used for a Person detected by the opennlp-ner engine).
However I would not recommend the same for metadata (e.g. fise:extracted-from or the dc metadata added for Enhancements. Clearly this could be also done by a configuration, but changing such a configuration would be really tricky and sometimes one would like to change (e.g. simplify) the whole structure (graph pattern written by the engines) something that would not be possible with a configuration anyway.
I a user want to do this I would suggest to use the "refactor engine". We could provide different sets of rules for different usage scenarios.
The entityhub is schema agnostic. However it uses some properties to store metadata for Entities and to link the metadata of an entity with the content. However I plan to provide a set of mapping rules that can convert properties of Entities described by the typical Linked Data Ontologies (e.g. foaf, sioc, goodRelations ...) to the schema.org counterparts. Currently I plan to start this by using the rather primitive mapping infrastructure built in to the Entityhub, but I would also like to use the much richer possibilities of the /rules package for that.
If someone could help with the rules I am happy to work on that.
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] Commented: (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Olivier Grisel (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12983691#action_12983691 ]
Olivier Grisel commented on STANBOL-3:
--------------------------------------
I would rather vote for 2 or 3. Maybe we should contact the jena and clerezza guys. They might have the same issue and 3 would make sense.
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Rupert Westenthaler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13051019#comment-13051019 ]
Rupert Westenthaler commented on STANBOL-3:
-------------------------------------------
I like the idea. If we could agree on that I would update the proposal for the new Enhancement Structure [1] to use schema.org.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/stanbol/docs/trunk/enhancer/stanbolenhancementstructure.html
best
Rupert
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Olivier Grisel (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13012089#comment-13012089 ]
Olivier Grisel commented on STANBOL-3:
--------------------------------------
I would rather go with solution 2 to make is easy to use the svn controlled website / cms of the apache infra to publish it.
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Andreas Kuckartz (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13051021#comment-13051021 ]
Andreas Kuckartz commented on STANBOL-3:
----------------------------------------
There is strong opposition to schema.org. Most of it is justified as far as I am concerned. Microdata is essentially a "hixification of an htmlized RDFa" as Dan Brickley wrote during a SemTech 2011 BOF (link below). For reasons I do not yet complete understand Google seems to intend to eliminate RDFa.
See:
The False Choice of Schema.org
By ManuSporny
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/false-choice/
SemTech 2011 BOF on structured data in HTML and vocabularies, 08 June 2011
[Manu Sporny and Tantek Çelik agree on something]
http://www.w3.org/2011/06/semtech-bof-notes.html
Drupal community discussing schema.org
[Steve Macbeth (Bing, schema.org) also comments]
http://groups.drupal.org/node/153354
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Andreas Kuckartz (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13067635#comment-13067635 ]
Andreas Kuckartz commented on STANBOL-3:
----------------------------------------
Maybe it is relevant here that the future of both microdata and RDFa is open:
"Arising from its Last Call review of the HTML5 suite of specifications, the
TAG wishes to raise issues on both the HTML microdata [1] and HTML+RDFa 1.1
[2] Working Drafts.
Specifically, our opinion is that the W3C should not publish two
specifications that meet such similar requirements in incompatible ways. We
think doing so would cause confusion for users and implementers, promote
lock-in, and fragment the web. We request that the W3C Director set up a
task force to find agreement on a way forward."
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13100
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13101
So far the outcome does not seem to be predictable. There is not even agreement between all participants that overlapping requirements exist...
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Andreas Gruber (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13051001#comment-13051001 ]
Andreas Gruber commented on STANBOL-3:
--------------------------------------
Isn't http://schema.org a chance to solve this issue?
- IMO the types listet their are very relevant for CMS, not only for SEO.
- The schema would provide an anchor for mappings to other ontologies.
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Andreas Kuckartz (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13051535#comment-13051535 ]
Andreas Kuckartz commented on STANBOL-3:
----------------------------------------
Maybe this is or will be relevant:
RDFa Core Default Profile [DRAFT]
http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Enrico Daga (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13053271#comment-13053271 ]
Enrico Daga commented on STANBOL-3:
-----------------------------------
Then, I also prefer RDFa, even if it's much more complicated then microdata...
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Olivier Grisel (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13067682#comment-13067682 ]
Olivier Grisel commented on STANBOL-3:
--------------------------------------
For the namespace, we will need to first revise the Stanbol enhancement structured proposed by Rupert and agree on it (we will probably need several iteration of drafts + sample usage examples in both turtle and JSON-LD to better grasp the impact on the client). Once a consensus emerges we will have to organize a vote on the mailing list and refactor the existing engines to align them all to the new data model.
However I would rather postpone this discussion to after the current release effort. Let say in September or October.
In the mean time we can do small ad-hoc extensions to the "fise" enhancement vocabularies that will give us use case coverage constraint for the "Big Stanbol Enhancement Structure" refactoring discussion. We just have to be aware that the current "fise" vocabulary + extensions will be refactored and deprecated in the medium term.
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Rupert Westenthaler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13051274#comment-13051274 ]
Rupert Westenthaler commented on STANBOL-3:
-------------------------------------------
Related to this issue this is not about RDFa vs. Microdata. It is strictly about the schema.
Basically it is about using
* "http://schema.org/name" instead (or in addition to) "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label"
* "http://schema.org/Person" instead of "http://dbpedia.org/ontology/"
* and so on
There exists already a RDF Schema for the schema.org vocabulary (see http://schema.rdfs.org/).
In general my impression is that the quality of the schema.org "ontology" is much better as similar ontologies currently used for such things.
Regarding RDFa and Microdata I also have a slight preference pro RDFa.
best
Rupert
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Enrico Daga (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13053269#comment-13053269 ]
Enrico Daga commented on STANBOL-3:
-----------------------------------
About the "which schema to support" issue.
We should keep the current schema for internal representation then provide support for consuming the enhancement data with multiple schemas using the 'refactor' engine. This engine uses the /rules module to refactor RDF fragments. It can be configured to convert the internal RDF to http://schema.rdfs.org/ vocabularies.
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Enrico Daga (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13012037#comment-13012037 ]
Enrico Daga commented on STANBOL-3:
-----------------------------------
Anyone knows which was the final decision (if any) about the base identifier for Stanbol ontologies/vocabularies?
If 2 or 3 are too complicated (number 2 requires a working domain while 3 requires a discussion within the whole Apache), could we go on with 1 for the incubating period?
If so, which could be the process of publishing ontologies? I propose to have them in an svn brnch and then setup a redirect from the stanbol website.
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] [Commented] (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Rupert Westenthaler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13054926#comment-13054926 ]
Rupert Westenthaler commented on STANBOL-3:
-------------------------------------------
I mainly agree with Olivier as long as it is about Statements consumed by the users (e.g. the URI used for a Person detected by the opennlp-ner engine).
However I would not recommend the same for metadata (e.g. fise:extracted-from or the dc metadata added for Enhancements. Clearly this could be also done by a configuration, but changing such a configuration would be really tricky and sometimes one would like to change (e.g. simplify) the whole structure (graph pattern written by the engines) something that would not be possible with a configuration anyway.
I a user want to do this I would suggest to use the "refactor engine". We could provide different sets of rules for different usage scenarios.
The entityhub is schema agnostic. However it uses some properties to store metadata for Entities and to link the metadata of an entity with the content. However I plan to provide a set of mapping rules that can convert properties of Entities described by the typical Linked Data Ontologies (e.g. foaf, sioc, goodRelations ...) to the schema.org counterparts. Currently I plan to start this by using the rather primitive mapping infrastructure built in to the Entityhub, but I would also like to use the much richer possibilities of the /rules package for that.
If someone could help with the rules I am happy to work on that.
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] Commented: (STANBOL-3) Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
Posted by "Enrico Daga (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12983699#action_12983699 ]
Enrico Daga commented on STANBOL-3:
-----------------------------------
I also would vote for 3 or 2. The main point is that it must be a stable one and it should not change more then 1 time :)
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.