Linked Data | Linked Data - Connect Distributed Data across the Web XML vs RDF : logique structurelle contre logique des données XML et RDF sont deux modèles différents d'encodage de l'information et, pourtant, ils sont souvent confondus. Le dernier exemple en date est la mise à disposition par la British Library de 14 millions de notices bibliographiques au format, je cite, « RDF/DC ». La confusion est patente de par l'absence d'URI pour identifier les ressources décrites. Or, en tant que lecteur régulier de ce blog, vous savez que l'URI est un des fondements du modèle RDF. Il est vrai que la distinction n'est pas forcément évidente à appréhender au premier abord et la syntaxe RDF/XML n'arrange pas les choses. On dit d'un flux XML qu'il est bien-formé s'il respecte la logique d'imbrication des balises (à la « poupée russe »), qu'il possède un élément racine et quelques règles primitives de XML. Reprenons l'exemple donnée par Manue, soit la phrase : « Socrate est un chat ». <html> <head> <title>Description de Socrate</title> </head> <body> <p>Socrate est un chat</p> </body></html>
SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System - home page SKOS is an area of work developing specifications and standards to support the use of knowledge organization systems (KOS) such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists and taxonomies within the framework of the Semantic Web ... [read more] Alignment between SKOS and new ISO 25964 thesaurus standard (2012-12-13) ISO 25964-1, published in 2011, replaced the previous thesaurus standards ISO 2788 and ISO 5964 (both now withdrawn). From Chaos, Order: SKOS Recommendation Helps Organize Knowledge (2009-08-18) Today W3C announces a new standard that builds a bridge between the world of knowledge organization systems - including thesauri, classifications, subject headings, taxonomies, and folksonomies - and the linked data community, bringing benefits to both. Call for Review: SKOS Reference Proposed Recommendation (2009-06-15) The Semantic Web Deployment Working Group has published the Proposed Recommendation of SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference.
GoodRelations - semanticweb.org.edu GoodRelations is a lightweight ontology for annotating offerings and other aspects of e-commerce on the Web. GoodRelations is the only OWL DL ontology officially supported by both Google and Yahoo. It provides a standard vocabulary for expressing things like that a particular Web site describes an offer to sell cellphones of a certain make and model at a certain price, that a pianohouse offers maintenance for pianos that weigh less than 150 kg, or that a car rental company leases out cars of a certain make and model from a particular set of branches across the country. Also, most if not all commercial and functional details of e-commerce scenarios can be expressed, e.g. eligible countries, payment and delivery options, quantity discounts, opening hours, etc. The GoodRelations ontology is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. <?
Une nouvelle norme pour le thésaurus (1) : Pourquoi une nouvelle no... Introduction à RDFa Résumé Le Web actuel est conçu essentiellement pour une consommation humaine. Et même lorsque des données interprétables font leur apparition sur le Web, elles sont typiquement distribuées dans un fichier séparé, avec un format séparé et une correspondance très limitée entre les versions homme et machine. En conséquence, les navigateurs Web ne peuvent fournir qu'une aide minimale aux humains pour l'analyse et le traitement des données web : les navigateurs voient seulement l'information de présentation. Nous introduisons RDFa, qui fournit un ensemble d'attributs XHTML pour prolonger les données visuelles par des indications intelligibles aux machines (machine-readable). Ce document n'est qu'une introduction à RDFa. Statut de ce document Cette section décrit le statut de ce document au moment de sa publication. Ce document est une note de groupe de travail produite conjointement par le groupe de travail Semantic Web Deployment [SWD-WG] et le groupe de travail XHTML 2 [XHTML2-WG] du W3C.
Welcome to the Bibliographic Ontology Website | The Bibliographic Ontology Linked Data | Linked Data - Connect Distributed Data across the Web Seeing Standards Poster of visualization (PDF, 36in x 108in) Metadata standard glossary, poster form (PDF, 36in x 41in) Metadata standard glossary, pamphlet form (PDF) The sheer number of metadata standards in the cultural heritage sector is overwhelming, and their inter-relationships further complicate the situation. This visual map of the metadata landscape is intended to assist planners with the selection and implementation of metadata standards. Each of the 105 standards listed here is evaluated on its strength of application to defined categories in each of four axes: community, domain, function, and purpose. The standards represented here are among those most heavily used or publicized in the cultural heritage community, though certainly not all standards that might be relevant are included. Content: Jenn Riley Design: Devin Becker Work funded by the Indiana University Libraries White Professional Development Award Copyright 2009-2010 Jenn Riley
Report on Persistent Identifiers [CERL] Hans-Werner Hilse and Jochen Kothe, Implementing Persistent Identifiers: Overview of concepts, guidelines and recommendations. London / Amsterdam: Consortium of European Libraries and European Commission on Preservation and Access, 2006. ISBN 90-6984-508-3. Download PDF version (persistent identifier): Traditionally, references to web content have been made by using URL hyperlinks. The report explains the principle of persistent identifiers and helps institutions decide which scheme would best fit their needs. The report was written by the Research and Development Department of the Goettingen State and University Library (Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) at the request of the Advisory Task Group (ATG) of the Consortium of European Research Libraries.
What is the Structured Web? The structured Web is object-level data within Internet documents and databases that can be extracted, converted from available forms, represented in standard ways, shared, re-purposed, combined, viewed, analyzed and qualified without respect to originating form or provenance. Over the past few months I have increasingly been writing about and referring to the structured Web. I have done so purposefully, but, so far, with little background or explication. With the inauguration of this occasional series, I hope to bring more color and depth to this topic [1]. Literally, over the past year, I have been learning and documenting on AI3 my attempts to understand the basis, concepts and tools of the emerging semantic Web. In that process, I have come to define my own outlines of the Web past, present and future. Confusing Terminology Surrounding Obvious Change Some Web pundits have embraced a versioning terminology of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 to describe one such world view. Academic v.
Libby Miller's homepage Libby Miller's homepage Photo by Max Froumentin Since Jan 2005 I've been working for Asemantics - my mail address is libby@asemantics.com though I'm still reachable on my bristol address. I was previously a senior technical researcher at the ILRT at the University of Bristol in the UK, working mostly on RDF, mostly in server-side Java or maybe a little light Perl, javascript, applescript or python. I want to catalogue the photos I took with my Palm camera and now my much better digital camera (you'll probably need Firefox for that link). Contact Find me on irc.freenode.net #rdfig and #foaf, or email. Work AsemanticsILRT Semantic Web papers, ILRT Semantic Web group page. foaf I'm a co-conspirator on foaf and RDFweb with Dan Brickley my foaf file, codepiction photo searching demo. (Old) Demos summary page