[OHM] Linked Data

Sat Apr 11 10:36:38 UTC 2015

Tod,

Let me change my statement,  "exposing raw RDF is not end-user friendly".

The things with triple tags is that they are supported by the OSM-platform
out of the box.

When querying a OHM element you has to parse tags, using a triple tag
system for relations allows you to do the same for relations. RDF as a
value or tag forces you to implement both tag parsing and RDF/RDF data
models(Such as OWL and EDM).

//
Albin
On Apr 11, 2015 12:44 AM, "todd.d.robbins at gmail.com" <
todd.d.robbins at gmail.com> wrote:

> I wouldn't go so far as to say that "RDF is not end-user friendly". I
> think that's on the UI/UX failures up to this point. The subject +
> predicate + object model can be displayed and UI elements designed in a way
> that makes the representation of relationships easy to document. Autofills
> with short notations, for instance, solve a lot of the ambiguities of
> deciding "hmm same_as vs. is_instance_of". I guess what I'm trying to say
> is that the unfriendliness of RDF to an end-user isn't necessarily or
> primarily because of the model for assertions but the UIs that have been
> attempted thus far by non-designers. Also, I think Albin is on the right
> track by investigating the triple tag/machine tag format (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata)#Triple_tags) for expressing
> complex relationships.
>
> Cheers!
>
> –Tod
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Albin Larsson <albin.post at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I would like to go with the ohm:uri:same_as and a ohm:uri:is_instance_of,
>> the idea it self is based on the idea that a mapper or end user will never
>> see a format such as RDF or JSONLD.
>>
>> Your first example would be a is_instance_of.
>>
>> As I wrote earlier we should support RDF/other formats, but not by force
>> the mapper to use them, ohm:uri:same_as would be equal to owl:sameAs(I
>> think(but has to look into it)) so developers would be translating the
>> tagging to RDF based on a schema we should provide. Then by creating some
>> middleman software and a basic API we could provide RDF/JSONLD/... output
>> and give developers a easier life.
>>
>> Would take maybe a week of work to create such a API.
>>
>> So short story, owl:sameAs has a equal relation tag, that tag just has
>> to be translated. This is done because RDF is not end-user friendly. Try
>> finding a place to enter RDF at Wikidata...
>>
>> //
>> Albin
>>
>> 2015-04-10 22:30 GMT+02:00 Rob H Warren <warren at muninn-project.org>:
>>
>>> Albin,
>>>
>>> owl:sameAs would allow us to link the object in OHM space to other
>>> databases, such as DB/Wikipedia/WikiData:
>>>
>>> Linking the OHM version of say
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct
>>>
>>> Or linking the ww1 trenches within OHM to their Muninn equivalent.
>>>
>>> Or linking greek structures with their  pelagios equivalent
>>> http://pelagios-project.blogspot.ca/
>>>
>>> Or linking modern administrative locations with their geonames,org
>>> location.
>>>
>>> Since a LOD version of OHM will be positioned to be the equivalent to
>>> dbpedia in historical GIS terms, the use of owl:sameAs would enable people
>>> to discover non-OHM resources since it is the most obvious LOD data set to
>>> link to.
>>>
>>> -rhw
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Apr 6, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Albin Larsson <albin.post at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Sorry for the delay answering, I have been busy with other stuff...
>>> >
>>> > About the OGC idea I can't say more then that it would be devastating
>>> to break the existing tools, the existing OHM instances(the rails-fork) is
>>> hard enough to maintain.
>>> >
>>> > Rob could you explain future why owl:sameAs is needed and provide a
>>> use case? I'm not getting the idea...
>>> >
>>> > //
>>> > Albin
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 2015-04-02 15:55 GMT+02:00 Rob H Warren <warren at muninn-project.org>:
>>> > Albin,
>>> >
>>> > I'd add owl:sameAs integration to the list of tags so that we can use
>>> OHM as a resource discovery mechanism. -rhw
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > On Mar 27, 2015, at 4:12 PM, historic-request at openstreetmap.org
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:57:36 +0100
>>> > > From: Albin Larsson <albin.post at gmail.com>
>>> > > To: "Historic at openstreetmap.org" <historic at openstreetmap.org>
>>> > > Subject: [OHM] Linked Data
>>> > > Message-ID:
>>> > >       <CAM-QGEmn+WwHCK4eee24Nn=+rPvxjFdSLqJ5=fqS33m=
>>> Dw1osQ at mail.gmail.com>
>>> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>> > >
>>> > > My thoughts on linked data in OpenHistoricalMap and how I do it:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> http://abbe98.github.io/blog/2015/03/26/mapping-the-past-with-linked-data-in-openhistoricalmap/
>>> > >
>>> > > Feedback, ideas, thoughts?
>>> > >
>>> > > //
>>> > > Albin
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Historic mailing list
>> Historic at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Tod Robbins
> Digital Asset Manager, MLIS
> todrobbins.com | @todrobbins <http://www.twitter.com/#!/todrobbins>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/historic/attachments/20150411/64d1e9ad/attachment.html>