From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Mon Feb 1 10:29:27 2010 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp (UniBW)) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:29:27 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] Search and Matchmaking on GoodRelations Data Message-ID: <4B669EF7.9070608@ebusiness-unibw.org> Dear all, I am frequently asked whether GoodRelations provides classes and properties for describing the product or services included in an offer etc. There seems to be a bit of confusion. GoodRelations provides two things: 1. A carefully designed set of classes, properties, and individuals for describing the offer and demand relationships between a business entity and a product. 2. A top-level ontology for specific products and services ontologies for describing functional aspects of products and services included in offers for sale, lease, repair, etc., i.e. - gr:ProductOrService as a superclass and - gr:quantitatativeProductOrServiceProperty, gr: qualitativeProductOrServiceProperty, gr:datatypeProductOrServiceProperty as superproperties for product features, and - a bit more. In "minimal" mode, you can use just part 1 of GoodRelations; it still buys you a lot, because you can combine "semantic" search with fulltext search on a much smaller subset See here: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsQueries (draft) Compare a Google search for "camcorder" with a faceted search for all GoodRelations offers (gr:Offering) that include at least one gr:ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder, to which an rdfs:label or rdfs:comment is attached that contains the string "camcorder". You will - search a much, much smaller text corpus (maybe 80 chars instead of Terabytes of text) - narrow your search to English content using the RDF language tag (and expand it to other languages using Wikipedia etc.) Detailed properties for describing the object or service (a camcorder, a car, an apartment,...) are being provided by GoodRelations-compliant ontologies for individual vertical industries, like eClassOWL, freeClass, Consumer Electronics Ontology (CEO), etc. See here: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations#Compatible_Vocabularies_for_Products_and_Services Such can be provided and are being prepared by many interest groups in relevant markets. Also, you can use dbPedia URIs and/or turn proprietary catalog hierarchies into GoodRelations-compliant ontologies for describing the product in more granularity. There will be recipes for those two alternatives at http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsComprehensiveDBpedia and http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsComprehensiveCatalogGroups The only important thing is that everybody uses the minimal top-level ontology part for product types and product features, as described here: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations#Creating_New_Vocabularies_for_Products_and_Services Ideally, there will be one or just a few dominating ontologies for product types, at least in a given domain. But you should expect a few hundred in reality, and real business matchmaking on the Web of Linked Data will require - a sophisticated, - iterative (find out how your types of interest are described - popular properties etc.), and - hybrid (combine structural/semantic and text/HLT/Regex) search strategy - for a sketch, see http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsQueries Any shop will increase its visibility on the Giant Graph of Commerce Data if he/she - adds more granularity and - chooses popular ontologies for the given vertical industry instead of just publishing a proprietary vocabulary, even if that was GoodRelations compatible. This will be the real challenge for future Search Engine Optimization using GoodRelations and RDFa. And there will be a trade-off decision between the effort and the impact, depending on the quality of the source data. Many shops do currently just have a textual description of their products in their databases. We cannot force them to lift all that to a fully structured representation in one huge step, because they simply can't do that. But they can gradually add more detail. Also, I have high hopes in OpenCalais and other NLT/HLT products for being able to lift minimal GoodRelations data to a more granular. Again: GoodRelations supports a wide range of granularity - it really depends on the technical ability of the owner of the data to provide details. Best wishes Martin Hepp -- -------------------------------------------------------------- martin hepp e-business & web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! ================================================================= Project page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ Resources for developers: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations Webcasts: Overview - http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ How-to - http://vimeo.com/7583816 Recipe for Yahoo SearchMonkey: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_and_Yahoo_SearchMonkey Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: "Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology" http://www.slideshare.net/mhepp/semantic-webbased-ecommerce-the-goodrelations-ontology-1535287 Overview article on Semantic Universe: http://www.semanticuniverse.com/articles-semantic-web-based-e-commerce-webmasters-get-ready.html Tutorial materials: ISWC 2009 Tutorial: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in Brief: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/Web_of_Data_for_E-Commerce_Tutorial_ISWC2009 From francofuji at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 18:02:20 2010 From: francofuji at gmail.com (francofuji at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:02:20 -0500 Subject: [goodrelations] Good Relations and aCl@ss Ontologies translations Message-ID: <30fdaa241002010902r5660d65ct534e429d15bdb630@mail.gmail.com> Hello: I am from Cuba. Have both GoodRelations and aCl at ss ontologies translations in Spanish?? Thanks. From steven.forth at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 18:20:46 2010 From: steven.forth at gmail.com (Steven Forth) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:20:46 -0500 Subject: [goodrelations] Good Relations and aCl@ss Ontologies translations In-Reply-To: <30fdaa241002010902r5660d65ct534e429d15bdb630@mail.gmail.com> References: <30fdaa241002010902r5660d65ct534e429d15bdb630@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Martin I hope you can take this as an opportunity to share some thoughts on best practices in using ontologies across languages. There are some thorny issues here and you may want to put it on an open forum. Steven On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:02 PM, wrote: > Hello: > > I am from Cuba. Have both GoodRelations and aCl at ss ontologies > translations in Spanish?? Thanks. > > _______________________________________________ > goodrelations mailing list > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations > -- Steven Forth steven.forth at gmail.com @StevenForth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmcclure at hypergrove.com Mon Feb 1 22:29:55 2010 From: jmcclure at hypergrove.com (John McClure) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 13:29:55 -0800 Subject: [goodrelations] Good Relations wiki Message-ID: I don't see how to look at the 'discussion pages' which are currently blocked on your wiki from the general public. Do I need to specially ask to be a user on the http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org wiki? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Wed Feb 3 08:27:38 2010 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp (UniBW)) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:27:38 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] New GoodRelations Extension for Magento Shop Software Message-ID: <4B69256A.4050202@ebusiness-unibw.org> Dear all: Good news: There is a much improved version of the free GoodRelations extension for the popular Magento shop software: http://www.magentocommerce.com/extension/2838/msemantic-basic As far as I understood, it can now also export product details and prices in GoodRelations / RDFa. Best wishes Martin Hepp -- -------------------------------------------------------------- martin hepp e-business & web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! ================================================================= Project page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ Resources for developers: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations Webcasts: Overview - http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ How-to - http://vimeo.com/7583816 Recipe for Yahoo SearchMonkey: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_and_Yahoo_SearchMonkey Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: "Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology" http://www.slideshare.net/mhepp/semantic-webbased-ecommerce-the-goodrelations-ontology-1535287 Overview article on Semantic Universe: http://www.semanticuniverse.com/articles-semantic-web-based-e-commerce-webmasters-get-ready.html Tutorial materials: ISWC 2009 Tutorial: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in Brief: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/Web_of_Data_for_E-Commerce_Tutorial_ISWC2009 From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Wed Feb 10 15:25:42 2010 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp (UniBW)) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:25:42 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] [Fwd: Representing vCard Objects in RDF (W3C Member Submission)] Message-ID: <4B72C1E6.1070509@ebusiness-unibw.org> Dear all: There is an updated spec of the vCard ontology for contact details. Such can be attached to many GoodRelations elements, like gr:BusinessEntity or gr:LocationOfSalesOrServiceProvisioning. If you are using the previous vCard 2006 spec from our recipes, you do not have to change your data immediately, because it will take some time for data consumers to update or expand their queries. Also, given the huge amount of vCard 2006 data, I assume that most applications will still process vCard 2006 for the next coming years. For novel applications, moving to the new format is recommended. If you are using vCard 2001 patterns, you should also upgrade your markup to the latest specification. If you have any question, please do not hesitate to ask. Best wishes Martin Hepp -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Representing vCard Objects in RDF (W3C Member Submission) Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:47:51 +0000 Resent-From: semantic-web at w3.org Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:44:38 +1000 From: Renato Iannella To: public-xg-socialweb at w3.org, semantic-web at W3C References: We are pleased to announce that an updated W3C Note for "Representing vCard Objects in RDF" is now available: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2010/SUBM-vcard-rdf-20100120 This W3C Member Submission merges the original W3C Note [1] with the later "An ontology for vCards" [2] to produce a unified approach to RDF vCard expression. The W3C Team has also produced some comments on the Submission [3]. Cheers... Renato Iannella (for the Authors) [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-vcard-rdf-20010222/ [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns-2006.html [3] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2010/01/Comment/ -- -------------------------------------------------------------- martin hepp e-business & web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! ================================================================= Project page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ Resources for developers: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations Webcasts: Overview - http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ How-to - http://vimeo.com/7583816 Recipe for Yahoo SearchMonkey: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_and_Yahoo_SearchMonkey Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: "Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology" http://www.slideshare.net/mhepp/semantic-webbased-ecommerce-the-goodrelations-ontology-1535287 Overview article on Semantic Universe: http://www.semanticuniverse.com/articles-semantic-web-based-e-commerce-webmasters-get-ready.html Tutorial materials: ISWC 2009 Tutorial: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in Brief: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/Web_of_Data_for_E-Commerce_Tutorial_ISWC2009 From francofuji at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 16:27:50 2010 From: francofuji at gmail.com (francofuji at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:27:50 -0500 Subject: [goodrelations] Best way of using ecl@ss ontology Message-ID: <30fdaa241002100727g1d8b73f6pfc17b4bd293a0ce0@mail.gmail.com> Hello every body: I am building an app that is using both GoodRelations combined with ecl at ssontologies. GoodRelations is small. I can load and proccess it in my web server. But ecl at ss it is not. There is some recomendation to consume and use ecl at ss? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Sat Feb 13 13:02:56 2010 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp (UniBW)) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:02:56 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] foaf:page vs. foaf:topic Message-ID: <4B7694F0.5080000@ebusiness-unibw.org> Dear all: In the context of the GoodRelations ontology, there is a regular need to link 1. a data entity (e.g. representing a company, a product, or an offer) with 2. the URI of a XHTML/HTML Web Resource that contains human-readable information about that entity (often combining the info for multiple such entities, i.e. it is NOT a direct representation of the data entity). Example: We define Microsoft as a business entity in our own namespace and want to preserve a link to the established, browsable resource. foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp.". Up to now, we generally use and recommend rdfs:seeAlso for the link from the data entity to the Web page URI, e.g. foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp."; rdfs:seeAlso . Note that we cannot simply do content negotiation (i.e. redirect http requests for html to http://www.microsoft.com), because of practical and theoretical reasons. Also, content negotiation is IMO no substitute for a traversable link from the data node to the HTML node in the graph of data). The initial motivation for rdfs:seeAlso was that it does not require importing a second ontology like FOAF, and I would also hold that using rdfs:seeAlso is, in principle, correct. However, due to the growing amount of links on the Web of Linked Data, rdfs:seeAlso is now being used so frequently that it has become too unspecific for our purpose. If there are 20+ rdfs:seeAlso links from an entity, e.g. to images and other resources, it's hard for a user agent to spot the single one link that points to the Web page, e.g. for actually buying a product. Now, the two main candidate predicates for replacing rdfs:seeAlso are IMHO 1. foaf:topic and 2. foaf:page. I have seen many usages of foaf:topic in such scenarios, but from reading the FOAF spec, I think that foaf:page is much more appropriate. Proposed Pattern: foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp."; foaf:page . foaf:topic could be used for linking back from the Web page URI to the data entity URI, e.g. foaf:topic foo:microsoft. What's your opinion on that? Will that work with your software applications? Or should we use foaf:topic instead? If so, in which direction? Alternative 1: foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp.". foaf:topic foo:microsoft. Alternative 2: foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp."; foaf:topic . I personally think that the second alternative is wrong, because the data entity does not describe the Web page, but vice versa. Since this decision will be important for compatibility with SemWeb / Linkedata applications, I would be very thankful for your comments. Best wishes Martin Hepp -- -- -------------------------------------------------------------- martin hepp e-business & web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! ================================================================= Project page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ Resources for developers: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations Webcasts: Overview - http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ How-to - http://vimeo.com/7583816 Recipe for Yahoo SearchMonkey: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_and_Yahoo_SearchMonkey Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: "Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology" http://www.slideshare.net/mhepp/semantic-webbased-ecommerce-the-goodrelations-ontology-1535287 Overview article on Semantic Universe: http://www.semanticuniverse.com/articles-semantic-web-based-e-commerce-webmasters-get-ready.html Tutorial materials: ISWC 2009 Tutorial: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in Brief: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/Web_of_Data_for_E-Commerce_Tutorial_ISWC2009 From richard at cyganiak.de Sat Feb 13 14:40:21 2010 From: richard at cyganiak.de (Richard Cyganiak) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:40:21 +0000 Subject: [goodrelations] foaf:page vs. foaf:topic In-Reply-To: <4B7694F0.5080000@ebusiness-unibw.org> References: <4B7694F0.5080000@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: Hi Martin, On 13 Feb 2010, at 12:02, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: > Proposed Pattern: > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp."; > foaf:page . Looks good. > foaf:topic could be used for linking back from the Web page URI to the > data entity URI, e.g. > > foaf:topic foo:microsoft. Yes. foaf:topic is the inverse of foaf:page. > What's your opinion on that? Will that work with your software > applications? Or should we use foaf:topic instead? If so, in which > direction? To give just one perspective: In our http://sig.ma both would work fine. If you used foaf:page, then the homepage URL would be shown next to a label saying ?web page?. If you used foaf:topic, then it would be shown next to a label saying ?is topic of?. The first (foaf:page) is perhaps a little bit more straightforward. > Alternative 2: > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp."; > foaf:topic . That's just plain wrong, as should be obvious from [1]. The document goes into the subject (domain), the thing that is the topic of the document goes into the object (range). Best, Richard [1] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_topic > > I personally think that the second alternative is wrong, because the > data entity does not describe the Web page, but vice versa. > > Since this decision will be important for compatibility with SemWeb / > Linkedata applications, I would be very thankful for your comments. > > Best wishes > > Martin Hepp > > -- > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > martin hepp > e-business & web science research group > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen > > e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) > skype: mfhepp > twitter: mfhepp > > Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! > ================================================================= > > Project page: > http://purl.org/goodrelations/ > > Resources for developers: > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations > > Webcasts: > Overview - http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ > How-to - http://vimeo.com/7583816 > > Recipe for Yahoo SearchMonkey: > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_and_Yahoo_SearchMonkey > > Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: > "Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology" > http://www.slideshare.net/mhepp/semantic-webbased-ecommerce-the-goodrelations-ontology-1535287 > > Overview article on Semantic Universe: > http://www.semanticuniverse.com/articles-semantic-web-based-e-commerce-webmasters-get-ready.html > > Tutorial materials: > ISWC 2009 Tutorial: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in Brief: A Hands- > on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! > SearchMonkey > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/Web_of_Data_for_E-Commerce_Tutorial_ISWC2009 > > > _______________________________________________ > goodrelations mailing list > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations From danny.ayers at gmail.com Sat Feb 13 13:47:12 2010 From: danny.ayers at gmail.com (Danny Ayers) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:47:12 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] foaf:page vs. foaf:topic In-Reply-To: <4B7694F0.5080000@ebusiness-unibw.org> References: <4B7694F0.5080000@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd1002130447w2e25d642n522a0e714284a183@mail.gmail.com> On 13 February 2010 13:02, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: > Or should we use foaf:topic instead? If so, in which direction? > > Alternative 1: > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp.". > > foaf:topic foo:microsoft. > > Alternative 2: > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp."; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? foaf:topic . > > I personally think that the second alternative is wrong, because the data > entity does not describe the Web page, but vice versa. Agreed. Personally I'd opt for a tweak to Alternative 1: foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp.". foaf:primaryTopic foo:microsoft. see http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_primaryTopic there is also the inverse http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_isPrimaryTopicOf Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name From scorlosquet at gmail.com Sat Feb 13 14:37:02 2010 From: scorlosquet at gmail.com (Stephane Corlosquet) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:37:02 -0500 Subject: [goodrelations] foaf:page vs. foaf:topic In-Reply-To: <4B7694F0.5080000@ebusiness-unibw.org> References: <4B7694F0.5080000@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: <1452bf811002130537q3d364772x1ffe366003c0e7db@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Martin Hepp (UniBW) < martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: > Dear all: > > In the context of the GoodRelations ontology, there is a regular need to > link > > 1. a data entity (e.g. representing a company, a product, or an offer) > > with > > 2. the URI of a XHTML/HTML Web Resource that contains human-readable > information about that entity (often combining the info for multiple such > entities, i.e. it is NOT a direct representation of the data entity). > > Example: We define Microsoft as a business entity in our own namespace and > want to preserve a link to the established, browsable resource. > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp.". > > Up to now, we generally use and recommend rdfs:seeAlso for the link from > the data entity to the Web page URI, e.g. > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp."; > rdfs:seeAlso . > > Note that we cannot simply do content negotiation (i.e. redirect http > requests for html to http://www.microsoft.com), because of practical and > theoretical reasons. Also, content negotiation is IMO no substitute for a > traversable link from the data node to the HTML node in the graph of data). > > The initial motivation for rdfs:seeAlso was that it does not require > importing a second ontology like FOAF, and I would also hold that using > rdfs:seeAlso is, in principle, correct. > > However, due to the growing amount of links on the Web of Linked Data, > rdfs:seeAlso is now being used so frequently that it has become too > unspecific for our purpose. > If there are 20+ rdfs:seeAlso links from an entity, e.g. to images and > other resources, it's hard for a user agent to spot the single one link that > points to the Web page, e.g. for actually buying a product. > > Now, the two main candidate predicates for replacing rdfs:seeAlso are IMHO > > 1. foaf:topic > and > 2. foaf:page. > > I have seen many usages of foaf:topic in such scenarios, but from reading > the FOAF spec, I think that foaf:page is much more appropriate. > It's not about being more "appropriate" really since there are inverse of each other, follow the domain/range to know which one to use, see http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_page > > Proposed Pattern: > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp."; > foaf:page . > > foaf:topic could be used for linking back from the Web page URI to the data > entity URI, e.g. > > foaf:topic foo:microsoft. > foaf:topic domain is foaf:Document, range is owl:Thing, it works. > > What's your opinion on that? Will that work with your software > applications? Or should we use foaf:topic instead? If so, in which > direction? > > Alternative 1: > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp.". > > foaf:topic foo:microsoft. > ok. > > Alternative 2: > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp."; > foaf:topic . > > I personally think that the second alternative is wrong, because the data > entity does not describe the Web page, but vice versa. > Right, is a foaf:Document, you should not use this alternative. Steph. > > Since this decision will be important for compatibility with SemWeb / > Linkedata applications, I would be very thankful for your comments. > > Best wishes > > Martin Hepp > > -- > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > martin hepp > e-business & web science research group > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen > > e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) > skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp > > Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! > ================================================================= > > Project page: > http://purl.org/goodrelations/ > > Resources for developers: > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations > > Webcasts: > Overview - http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ > How-to - http://vimeo.com/7583816 > > Recipe for Yahoo SearchMonkey: > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_and_Yahoo_SearchMonkey > > Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: "Semantic Web-based > E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology" > > http://www.slideshare.net/mhepp/semantic-webbased-ecommerce-the-goodrelations-ontology-1535287 > > Overview article on Semantic Universe: > > http://www.semanticuniverse.com/articles-semantic-web-based-e-commerce-webmasters-get-ready.html > > Tutorial materials: > ISWC 2009 Tutorial: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in Brief: A Hands-on > Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/Web_of_Data_for_E-Commerce_Tutorial_ISWC2009 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danbri at danbri.org Sat Feb 13 15:56:34 2010 From: danbri at danbri.org (Dan Brickley) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:56:34 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] foaf:page vs. foaf:topic In-Reply-To: <4B7694F0.5080000@ebusiness-unibw.org> References: <4B7694F0.5080000@ebusiness-unibw.org> Message-ID: Hi Martin, On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: > Dear all: > > In the context of the GoodRelations ontology, there is a regular need to > link > > 1. a data entity (e.g. representing a company, a product, or an offer) > > with > > 2. the URI of a XHTML/HTML Web Resource that contains human-readable > information about that entity (often combining the info for multiple such > entities, i.e. it is NOT a direct representation of the data entity). Presumably you wouldn't exclude the possibility that the Web document eventually contains some level of machine-readable description? Microformats, RDF, or even content negotiation. > Example: We define Microsoft as a business entity in our own namespace and > want to preserve a link to the established, browsable resource. > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp.". > > Up to now, we generally use and recommend rdfs:seeAlso for the link from the > data entity to the Web page URI, e.g. > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp."; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?rdfs:seeAlso . See also was designed for this. It has a slight cultural bias towards citing documents that have a machine-readable form but in the RDFCore specs, nothing that mandates this. I made some additional notes in http://esw.w3.org/topic/UsingSeeAlso explaining why we took this design decision btw. > Note that we cannot simply do content negotiation (i.e. redirect http > requests for html to http://www.microsoft.com), because of practical and > theoretical reasons. Also, content negotiation is IMO no substitute for a > traversable link from the data node to the HTML node in the graph of data). Understood and agreed. 'Normal' Web pages are deeply embedded in social practice, not to mention business cards, databases and even QR Codes. > The initial motivation for rdfs:seeAlso was that it does not require > importing a second ontology like FOAF, and I would also hold that using > rdfs:seeAlso is, in principle, correct. I appreciate the tradeoffs here. All vocabularies describe the same world so naturally our efforts overlap. It makes sense to document the cases where we have similar idioms in different namespaces. > However, due to the growing amount of links on the Web of Linked Data, > rdfs:seeAlso is now being used so frequently that it has become too > unspecific for our purpose. Ah, a success disaster? :) When I was pitching 'hypertext RDF' to an XML audience in 2003 I suggested an idiom that has not really been used yet. Rather than just mention a seeAlso pointing to a 'document', make additional statements about the thing we point to. Perhaps a Person is further described by a Resume document, or a Bibliography document, or a PhotoGallery document. Similarly with companies, there are different kinds of document - for humans and for machines - which we can link to. In http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2003/12/dan_brickleys_rdfsseealso_rdf.html Bob Ducharme picked up on this, "Note in particular the ninth of Dan?s 11 slides, which demonstrates how to assign a type to the link destination. Like any link typing or link destination typing, this adds value to the link by letting human or automated agents decide whether traversing the link will give them information they want without requiring them to follow the link." ... but nobody else has seemed too interested yet :) via http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/talks/xml2003/Overview-3.html Dan Brickley > If there are 20+ rdfs:seeAlso links from an entity, ?e.g. to images and > other resources, it's hard for a user agent to spot the single one link that > points to the Web page, e.g. for actually buying a product. I'd argue that this should motivate us to create a few classes indicating typical forms of RDF document. These aren't 1:1 with RDF vocabularies, since each namespace can be used in many different ways. The Dublin Core community lately call these markup idioms "application profiles". > Now, the two main candidate predicates for replacing rdfs:seeAlso are IMHO > > 1. foaf:topic > and > 2. foaf:page. > > I have seen many usages of foaf:topic in such scenarios, but from reading > the FOAF spec, I think that foaf:page is much more appropriate. As someone else pointed out, these are inverses. A (foaf:)Document can have many things that are its topics; for each of those things, (foaf:)page points back the other way; to a Web page about that thing. FOAF highlights an important case, where a document has some particular thing as its (foaf:)primaryTopic. We used this as a tricky for helping ground RDF descriptions in the deployed world of 'normal' Web sites, while maintaining a distinction between things and the documents that describe them. The inverse property (foaf:)isPrimaryTopicOf is there as a convenience for situations especially in RDF/XML where the markup is primarily about the thing, and the indicative document is mentioned somewhat in passing as an XML subelement. In RDFa the need for this is somewhat less since we have the rev= notation (in XHTML at least). > Proposed Pattern: > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp."; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? foaf:page . I would write foaf:homepage there. FOAF homepage is an OWL inverse functional property, so if you find two descriptions mentioning blah blah blah having a foaf:homepage of you can infer they are both talking about Microsoft. > foaf:topic could be used for linking back from the Web page URI to the data > entity URI, e.g. > > foaf:topic foo:microsoft. Yep, although foaf:primaryTopic would work here slightly better in this specific example, assuming it is reasonably agreed by all concerned that the page is mainly about a single entity Microsoft. Your original question mentioned 'often combining the info for multiple such entities', in which case 'topic' is perfectly fine. But if it is possible to specialcase those documents which we know have a distinct primary topic, I'd recommend doing so since it helps hugely with data merging and identity reasoning. So, when to use foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf versus foaf:homepage? foaf:homepage is ...and the dividing line between saying that a document is something's "home page" versus merely a page that has it as a primary topic, is a hard one to articulate precisely. It has something to do with control and authority, and so works a bit differently depending on the kind of entity. For example, I could write a page about Madonna which had here as a primary topic, but we wouldn't say it was her homepage. Just a page about her. Similarly with companies. But as you move into other entity types, eg. pets, children and products, the intuitions blur a bit. Pragmatically, 'homepage' has an open rdfs:domain of owl:Thing so that we can freely talk about lots of kinds of thing having homepages. It is also a much nicer property name than 'isPrimaryTopicOf'. I would recommend it for at least company Web sites. Your examples were a company, a product, and an offer. I'd go with 'homepage' for the first two. For offer, I haven't looked at examples but I would guess either primaryTopic of isPrimaryTopicOf would work; and your choice there could be driven by syntax-level concerns from RDF/XML or RDFa, rather than pure modelling. Are you mainly targetting RDFa here? Does it need to work in HTML5 as well as XHTML, etc. > What's your opinion on that? Will that work with your software applications? > Or should we use foaf:topic instead? If so, in which direction? > > Alternative 1: > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp.". > > foaf:topic foo:microsoft. > > Alternative 2: > > foo:microsoft a gr:BusinessEntity; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? gr:legalName "Microsoft Corp."; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? foaf:topic . > > I personally think that the second alternative is wrong, because the data > entity does not describe the Web page, but vice versa. Correct. > Since this decision will be important for compatibility with SemWeb / > Linkedata applications, I would be very thankful for your comments. Thanks for bringing this up. From a linking point of view, it is good to build connections between datasets structured around real-world entities (companies, products) and datasets that have URLs for 'old fashioned' homepages. I think we gain even more when those relationships make use of 'Inverse Functional Property' and 'Functional Property' constructs from OWL since it helps with automated data merging (as used in Sindice, Garlik etc.). Whether you prefer to use FOAF or not, only you can decide :) If you do use it, let me know and I'll drop an example into the FOAF spec pointing to the relevant bit of GR documentation. If you'd rather keep things homogeneous and define a relation in the gr: namespace, perhaps at least express it's connection to the foaf:primaryTopic concept using OWL (and I can reciprocate that in the FOAF RDFS/OWL schema). Finally if you do choose to explore the idea of using seeAlso with more precise typing of the thing linked to, I'd love to hear how that works out. cheers, Dan From martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org Thu Feb 25 14:57:39 2010 From: martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org (Martin Hepp (UniBW)) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:57:39 +0100 Subject: [goodrelations] Yahoo Turns on Goodrelations again! Message-ID: <4B8681D3.3000605@ebusiness-unibw.org> Dear all: Great news: After a longer outage, Yahoo has just turned on the improved rendering of GoodRelations RDFa product descriptions. That means every show using GoodRelations will now get much more appealing rendering in the search results. Thank you, Yahoo! Best wishes Martin Hepp -- -------------------------------------------------------------- martin hepp e-business & web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! ================================================================= Project page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ Resources for developers: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations Webcasts: Overview - http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ How-to - http://vimeo.com/7583816 Recipe for Yahoo SearchMonkey: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_and_Yahoo_SearchMonkey Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: "Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology" http://www.slideshare.net/mhepp/semantic-webbased-ecommerce-the-goodrelations-ontology-1535287 Overview article on Semantic Universe: http://www.semanticuniverse.com/articles-semantic-web-based-e-commerce-webmasters-get-ready.html Tutorial materials: ISWC 2009 Tutorial: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in Brief: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/Web_of_Data_for_E-Commerce_Tutorial_ISWC2009 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Picture 36.png Type: image/png Size: 110805 bytes Desc: not available URL: