[OHM] Linked Data

Sat Apr 11 15:13:00 UTC 2015

Let me refine it further ;) "exposing raw RDF is not meant for the end-user".

-rhw

> On Apr 11, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Albin Larsson <albin.post at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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